Javier Vazquez could be dealt to the White Sox for either Jose Contreras or Jon Garland, a baseball insider told the New York Daily News.
A Vazquez deal is on the verge of going down. The Mets were still in it at last check. It's unclear whether the Nationals were able to put together anything to entice Diamondbacks GM Josh Byrnes.

Link to article (halfway down is the Sox part) (http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/baseball/mets/story/374315p-318162c.html)

EDIT: Vazquez makes $11.5 million in 2006 and $12.5 million in 2007.

CPditka

12-13-2005, 04:10 AM

per rotoworld

Javier Vazquez could be dealt to the White Sox for either Jose Contreras or Jon Garland, a baseball insider told the New York Daily News.
A Vazquez deal is on the verge of going down. The Mets were still in it at last check. It's unclear whether the Nationals were able to put together anything to entice Diamondbacks GM Josh Byrnes.

Link to article (halfway down is the Sox part) (http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/baseball/mets/story/374315p-318162c.html)

I saw this too. Interesting because I remember hearing of Something like Vazquez\Cintron for Harris\Garland. Seems a little less likely with the sox getting their utility guy Mackowiak. No way I would do this deal unless part of Vazquez salary was picked up, I meant at least 40% of it.

Fantosme

12-13-2005, 04:12 AM

Aren't the Yankees already paying most of Vazquez's contract?

EDIT: Nevermind, Vazquez has 2/24 remaining that NYY aren't paying

WhiteSoxFan84

12-13-2005, 04:31 AM

Why don't we take these trade talks a step further and try to pick up former gold glover and left-handed bopper Shawn Green? He's only 33, won't make much more than $9 mill this year, and the guys stats are solid.

Career .283 BA. OBP has been over .350 since 1999. Respectable strike-out total. Has hit over 40 HRs 3 times in his career (will probably hit 30-35 at the Cell). Has played over 150 games per year since 1998.

I'd trade Jon Garland before I'd trade Contreras. The only reason I say that is because Contreras will be a lot easier to re-sign than Garland will be. Garland is young and entering his prime, his price tag will be HUGE. And unlike Paul Konerko, if this guy enters the free agent market, I'm pretty sure he will not come back to the Sox.

Vazquez and Green combined will make about $20-21 million in 2006. Vazquez will get about $12 mill and like I said earlier, Green will get about $9 mill. We would ask the Diamondbacks to cover $7-8 mill of that $21 mill. Garland will probably be rewarded over $7 mill in arbitration. So in the end, we'd only be adding around $6-7 mill in salary in 2006.

i dont doubt for one second a vazquez for garland deal one bit.... it secures our rotation furthur.... and gives the dimondbacks a great pitcher who will be off the books sooner. (they want more payroll freedom asap)

we want a winning rotation signed up past 2006 NOW..... and it seems like garland isnt comming back after 06.... contreras.... he would probably give us a huge discount.....

if it was contreras for vazquez..... id say **** off and the **** off again.

vazquez for garland straight up.... we do

veeter

12-13-2005, 06:02 AM

I hate when Kenny is enamored with a player this much. Vasquez is a sub .500 career pitcher, who had an almost 4.50 era in the crappy national league last year. I think he sucks. This deal makes no sense because he makes a ton of money. Keep Jon. Keep Jose and try to repeat. Then take your chances signing which ever you want to keep. To me, this would make repeating much tougher.

caulfield12

12-13-2005, 06:47 AM

Why don't we take these trade talks a step further and try to pick up former gold glover and left-handed bopper Shawn Green? He's only 33, won't make much more than $9 mill this year, and the guys stats are solid.

Career .283 BA. OBP has been over .350 since 1999. Respectable strike-out total. Has hit over 40 HRs 3 times in his career (will probably hit 30-35 at the Cell). Has played over 150 games per year since 1998.

I'd trade Jon Garland before I'd trade Contreras. The only reason I say that is because Contreras will be a lot easier to re-sign than Garland will be. Garland is young and entering his prime, his price tag will be HUGE. And unlike Paul Konerko, if this guy enters the free agent market, I'm pretty sure he will not come back to the Sox.

Vazquez and Green combined will make about $20-21 million in 2006. Vazquez will get about $12 mill and like I said earlier, Green will get about $9 mill. We would ask the Diamondbacks to cover $7-8 mill of that $21 mill. Garland will probably be rewarded over $7 mill in arbitration. So in the end, we'd only be adding around $6-7 mill in salary in 2006.

I want no part of Shawn Green. He had one very good season in Toronto and parlayed that into a huge deal with the Dodgers. We might as well get JD Drew while we are at it, or Travis Lee.

And there´s no way KW is going to part with Young at this point.

There´s also no way a cash-poor, debt-ridden franchise like the D-Backs are going to add that much in salary. They also are looking to part with Glaus after just one season...so dealing Green is not their biggest priority.

Garland for Vasquez with a little cash, say $2-3 million, to the White Sox is much more likely...essentially, we would be selling our best prospect to the D´Backs in Young and getting a huge contract for a 33 year old player in return, when we could have an affordable stud outfielder who would keep our payroll down and allow us to keep our pitching intact in Young

chaotic8512

12-13-2005, 07:00 AM

OK, let's have a look at this Vazquez. He was on the Expos and the D'backs for all but one year of his career, so wins are harder to come by. This is a reason to not analyze a pitcher solely on career record. He's been able to keep his WHIP below 1.30 for 5 years straight, which is fairly decent (especially in comparison to Garland, who had his first sub 1.3 WHIP year last year), but the BAA has been on an upward trend for the past few years. Vazquez is 29, so age isn't too much a factor, but Garland's only 26, you gotta believe he's entering his prime here. While Vazquez might be an answer eventually (I'd be intrigued to see how he pitches for a winner...), he is certainly not the answer, and I think KW and the White Sox need to take a chance here as far as past 2006 is concerned and keep what we have. If Contreras and Garland have less than stellar encore performances, we won't blame you, KW... wait for midseason, if necessary, to make a move of this proportion.

You never know, this might scare Garland into re-signing... please? :redface:

BeviBall!

12-13-2005, 07:49 AM

No sir. I don't like it.

ChiSoxIn06

12-13-2005, 08:11 AM

I've never like Vasquez...to me he is always a clubhouse problem waiting to happen.

Qdiddy

12-13-2005, 08:16 AM

"Javier Vazquez could be dealt to the White Sox for either Jose Contreras or Jon Garland, a baseball insider told the New York Daily News." Per Rotoworld

link:www.rotoworld.com (http://www.rotoworld.com)

soxgirl617

12-13-2005, 08:21 AM

I am praying that's just a crazy rumor. Why the heck would that be a good idea?!

Madvora

12-13-2005, 08:28 AM

I am praying that's just a crazy rumor. Why the heck would that be a good idea?!
I think the Sox know they don't have a chance with Garland when he reaches free agency. If he has another year like 2005, his price will be through the roof, especially since he's still pretty young.

Fantosme

12-13-2005, 08:28 AM

http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=63669

Flight #24

12-13-2005, 09:02 AM

Interesting. They're not too dissimilar pitchers to date, although Garland's obviously younger. And if Jon's arb award is anything like the FA contracts being thrown around, you're talking about Vazquez being on a 2-yr deal at a similar price v. Jon being on a 1-yr. So you avoid what's likely to be a 4-yr deal for Jon and lock in 4 of your starters for '07. It's probably also easier for KW to commit to significant payroll increases for the next 1-2 years given the makeup of the team, but longer could be questionable. There's also the Ozzie/Coop factor, which could turn Vazquez into a far better pitcher here than he was in NY/AZ. His #s in the relative obscurity of Montreal were so vastly superior to those the past 2 years that it makes you wonder how much the mental aspects of the game, being the big-$$$ starter, and being away from the family wore on him. Ozzie seems like the kind of manager who's good with guys like that.

The significant downside, 4 of your 5 starters hit the market over the next 2 years, including 3 after '07. That's a cliff, and it pretty much puts a hard stop to any contention, unless you're willing & able to pay market rate for these guys or other FA pitchers. Or unless you trade one in '07.

Chek2002

12-13-2005, 09:04 AM

I think Kenny should do this. Getting Vazquez would not be that big of down grade. You have to keep in mind Contreras and Garland both can walk after this season. This would give us something back, we will not get anything but a couple of draft picks if they walk. Trading one of the two would allow the White Sox to concentrate on signing the other next offseason. It would be hard for the Sox to sign two of the better free agents next offseason. I would rather it be Contreras in the deal, since he is older and more of a risk long term.

samram

12-13-2005, 09:13 AM

"Javier Vazquez could be dealt to the White Sox for either Jose Contreras or Jon Garland, a baseball insider told the New York Daily News." Per Rotoworld

link:www.rotoworld.com (http://www.rotoworld.com)

Why is it that the Daily News gets told so much stuff? My guess is that they ask so many damn questions, people will just tell them something so their reporters will go away. That said, this rumor makes a bit more sense than some of their other gems.

nodiggity59

12-13-2005, 09:15 AM

This sucks, but I trust KW to make the right decision. If he believes in Vazquez, then I'll give him a shot.

caulfield12

12-13-2005, 09:24 AM

I think Kenny should do this. Getting Vazquez would not be that big of down grade. You have to keep in mind Contreras and Garland both can walk after this season. This would give us something back, we will not get anything but a couple of draft picks if they walk. Trading one of the two would allow the White Sox to concentrate on signing the other next offseason. It would be hard for the Sox to sign two of the better free agents next offseason. I would rather it be Contreras in the deal, since he is older and more of a risk long term.

However, due to age, Contreras will only be looking at a one or two year contract. Garland will be looking minimum 3, maximum, 5. That´s going to be more than the White Sox payroll can swallow.

The perception has always been that JG wants to return to California or maybe Arizona, whereas Jose has found a home with OG, El Duque, Uribe, etc. Contreras has finally begin to feel comfortable...so it seems more unlikely that he would hold out for the best possible offer, giving us the so-called hometown discount that we got when Konerko didn´t take more money from the Orioles and Angels. JG is not going to give us any break.

nevr say dye sox

12-13-2005, 09:26 AM

Fox sports reported the same thing. Contreas or Garland / prospect for Vazquez. Hopefully it's Contreas, we use Garland for the year, and McCarthy steps up for Garland when we lose him next year!

Ol' No. 2

12-13-2005, 09:30 AM

As long as the Snakes are sending along the $3M a year paid by the Yankees, I'd do this deal. Given a choice, I'd send Garland over Contreras, primarily because I think it will be more likely to re-sign Contreras at a reasonable price after 2006.

Realist

12-13-2005, 09:36 AM

Yikes. I dunno about this trade. I hope the Daily News insider was Ray Barone.

Paulwny

12-13-2005, 09:43 AM

However, due to age, Contreras will only be looking at a one or two year contract. Garland will be looking minimum 3, maximum, 5. That´s going to be more than the White Sox payroll can swallow.
.

Due to his age I think Contreras will be looking for a > 2yr deal. It may be his last contract so he'll look for extended yrs.

Mickster

12-13-2005, 09:44 AM

I mentioned this a week ago when Jon turned down the 3 year offer from the sox. Kenny has always been interested in Vazquez. At worst, we trade Jon for Javier and get a SP with 2 years remaining on his K versus 1 year left with Jon. The Yanks sent over cash w/ Vazquez and so long as that cash is sent to the Sox (maybe $1M more per year from the DBacks) he'll essentially cost what Jon would should Jon actually go thru with arb.

Interesting. They're not too dissimilar pitchers to date, although Garland's obviously younger. And if Jon's arb award is anything like the FA contracts being thrown around, you're talking about Vazquez being on a 2-yr deal at a similar price v. Jon being on a 1-yr. So you avoid what's likely to be a 4-yr deal for Jon and lock in 4 of your starters for '07. It's probably also easier for KW to commit to significant payroll increases for the next 1-2 years given the makeup of the team, but longer could be questionable. There's also the Ozzie/Coop factor, which could turn Vazquez into a far better pitcher here than he was in NY/AZ. His #s in the relative obscurity of Montreal were so vastly superior to those the past 2 years that it makes you wonder how much the mental aspects of the game, being the big-$$$ starter, and being away from the family wore on him. Ozzie seems like the kind of manager who's good with guys like that.

The significant downside, 4 of your 5 starters hit the market over the next 2 years, including 3 after '07. That's a cliff, and it pretty much puts a hard stop to any contention, unless you're willing & able to pay market rate for these guys or other FA pitchers. Or unless you trade one in '07.I don't know what they do to young pitchers in NY, but how many promising young pitchers have they screwed up over the last few years? I'm pretty confident that Vazquez would flourish in Chicago with Ozzie and Cooper.

CHIsoxNation

12-13-2005, 09:46 AM

Due to his age I think Contreras will be looking for a > 2yr deal. It may be his last contract so he'll look for extended yrs.

I agree, but I think Contreras will be willing to give a home town discount because of how happy he is here whereas Garland will be looking for some big bucks and something long term.

Paulwny

12-13-2005, 09:49 AM

I don't know what they do to young pitchers in NY, but how many promising young pitchers have they screwed up over the last few years? I'm pretty confident that Vazquez would flourish in Chicago with Ozzie and Cooper.

Some young guys can't handle the NY pressure. Wang, Small and Chacon don't appear to be screwed up.

Fenway

12-13-2005, 09:52 AM

A Montreal writer told me Vazquez simply can not pitch well in front of big crowds and he is not a pitcher you want in there during a pressure situation.

He was finished in New York after he came in to try and clean up the mess Kevin Brown made in Game 7 of the 04 ALCS and threw a meatball to Damon which pretty much killed the Yankees.

Paulwny

12-13-2005, 09:53 AM

I agree, but I think Contreras will be willing to give a home town discount because of how happy he is here whereas Garland will be looking for some big bucks and something long term.

Agree he may give a home town discount money wise, but may use the discount to negotiate for additional yrs.

Flight #24

12-13-2005, 09:53 AM

I don't know what they do to young pitchers in NY, but how many promising young pitchers have they screwed up over the last few years? I'm pretty confident that Vazquez would flourish in Chicago with Ozzie and Cooper.

A Montreal writer told me Vazquez simply can not pitch well in front of big crowds and he is not a pitcher you want in there during a pressure situation.

He was finished in New York after he came in to try and clean up the mess Kevin Brown made in Game 7 of the 04 ALCS and threw a meatball to Damon which pretty much killed the Yankees.

Sounds familiar......
:contreras:
"Now I am the master"

Ol' No. 2

12-13-2005, 09:57 AM

Some young guys can't handle the NY pressure. Wang, Small and Chacon don't appear to be screwed up.But they did the same thing to Weaver, too. I'm not sure we've seen enough of Wang, Small and Chacon to know how they will hold up. But Flight had it about right. At some point you have to start looking at the coaching staff.

Flight #24

12-13-2005, 09:59 AM

Some young guys can't handle the NY pressure. Wang, Small and Chacon don't appear to be screwed up.

Here's the difference: None of those guys were expected to do anything but suck, so there really wasn't much pressure on them. Guys like Contreras, Vazquez, Weaver all came with pretty high expectations. Completely different story.

That and the fact that "Magic" Mel Stottlemyre hasn't had as much time to "improve" the 3 you mention (and now he's gone).

dugwood31

12-13-2005, 10:00 AM

I say if Kenny's gonna trade Garland, do it now, while his stock is at its peak. Anyone else worried that last year was a fluke?

We have three options with Garland. He has a big year and pitches for somebody else in 07 because his value is inflated. He has a decent year and pitches for somebody else in 07 because his value is inflated (see AJ Burnett). Or he has a bad year, and his value isn't inflated.

About Vazquez: He was on my fantasy team, and I haven't checked the stats since I heard this rumor, but his ERA was inflated by about 4 or 5 horrible starts (opening day against the luvable losers being one of them). He strikes out a bunch and had some incredible streak of games or innings without walking anyone. I'm intrigued.

Mickster

12-13-2005, 10:04 AM

I'll predict that this deal gets done. AZ is over the barrel w/ Vazquez. If they do not trade him in the next 3 weeks, he'll become a FA.

Ol' No. 2

12-13-2005, 10:06 AM

I'll predict that this deal gets done. AZ is over the barrel w/ Vazquez. If they do not trade him in the next 3 weeks, he'll become a FA.March 15 is the deadline.

TomBradley72

12-13-2005, 10:07 AM

I say if Kenny's gonna trade Garland, do it now, while his stock is at its peak. Anyone else worried that last year was a fluke?

I don't think it was fluke at all.....I think it was a "breakthrough season" for a very talented pitcher entering his prime. His two post season starts (one after a very long layoff) sealed the deal for me. I think Garland is for real...and (barring injury) will be one of the league's top starters over the next few years. I'd rather have him for 2006/get another pennant/WS ring and let him go via FA...than hurt our chances to repeat.

oeo

12-13-2005, 10:07 AM

We have three options with Garland. He has a big year and pitches for somebody else in 07 because his value is inflated. He has a decent year and pitches for somebody else in 07 because his value is inflated (see AJ Burnett). Or he has a bad year, and his value isn't inflated.
I don't know, it's almost too hard to tell. Either he had a break-out year, or it was a fluke...I guess we'll find out.

But I think a lot of it has to do with Ozzie and Cooper. He has never had the confidence that he has now, and a lot of that could be because of Ozzie. Who's to say Garland would even be the same pitcher somewhere else, that he was this year with Ozzie?

Mickster

12-13-2005, 10:08 AM

March 15 is the deadline.

:redface:

Well, they have 3 months to trade him!

Ol' No. 2

12-13-2005, 10:11 AM

:redface:

Well, they have 3 months to trade him!I'm sure they won't want to wait that long. They're going to have to be able to plan their roster and having uncertainty in a key roster spot until spring training is not conducive. I'll be surprised if they don't complete a deal within the next few weeks.

beckett21

12-13-2005, 10:11 AM

I've never like Vasquez...to me he is always a clubhouse problem waiting to happen.

I love posts like these, especially from an apparent clubhouse insider.

Seriously, where do people come up with this kind of stuff?

Put Vazquez in the Sox rotation with the tutelage of Cooper, and you have a Cy Young candidate. No teal.

No offense to Garland, but if he is looking to bolt and break the bank after this year, thanks for the memories kid. I'd take Vazquez in a heartbeat, clubhouse issues aside. (:?:)

Paulwny

12-13-2005, 10:12 AM

Here's the difference: None of those guys were expected to do anything but suck, so there really wasn't much pressure on them. Guys like Contreras, Vazquez, Weaver all came with pretty high expectations. Completely different story.

That and the fact that "Magic" Mel Stottlemyre hasn't had as much time to "improve" the 3 you mention (and now he's gone).

Mel Stottlemeir taught Small a different grip on one of his piches, I don't remember which pitch. Small credits this with a turn around in his career. He saw that Contreras was tipping his split finger pitch, he then had him continally show the split finger pitch and change the grip of the ball in the glove. As far as Weaver's concerned, it's much easier to play for a team, detroit, which is not expected to compete. Is it Stottlemeir's fault that weaver couldn't handle NY where the crowd boos unmercifully if you don't produce.

Flight #24

12-13-2005, 10:17 AM

Mel Stottlemeir taught Small a different grip on one of his piches, I don't remember which pitch. Small credits this with a turn around in his career. He saw that Contreras was tipping his split finger pitch, he then had him continally show the split finger pitch and change the grip of the ball in the glove. As far as Weaver's concerned, it's much easier to play for a team, detroit, which is not expected to compete. Is it Stottlemeir's fault that weaver couldn't handle NY where the crowd boos unmercifully if you don't produce.

All I can point to is a consistently underperforming staff when not headed by the likes of Clemens & Pettite. There's a decent list of guys who performed poorly in NY and better either before or after that. This includes Loaiza, Contreras, Vazquez, Weaver. At some point, coaching becomes the common factor.

I'll just say I'm extremely happy that we have Coop and leave it at that. I'm fairly confident that if Vazquez come here that he'll pitch well. I think it could easily be a Garcia situation where Javier is a very strong #2 with some #1 type of performances & upside.

However, I am in favor of no deal that sends away Chris Young or Jerry Owens along with Garland/Contreras.

nodiggity59

12-13-2005, 10:22 AM

Is it just me or shouldn't the Sox get a prospect as well? I mean, Vazquez is only signed for 1 year more, makes more $, is older, is coming off a much worse season, and is not playoff tested.

I'd want $ in return and at least one decent prospect/useful player or no deal. JG is a FA next year, but that doesn't mean we have to get screwed in this deal.

Mickster

12-13-2005, 10:26 AM

Is it just me or shouldn't the Sox get a prospect as well? I mean, Vazquez is only signed for 1 year more, makes more $, is older, is coming off a much worse season, and is not playoff tested.

I'd want $ in return and at least one decent prospect/useful player or no deal. JG is a FA next year, but that doesn't mean we have to get screwed in this deal.

Keep the prospect. Send over cash instead. :cool:

Ol' No. 2

12-13-2005, 10:30 AM

Mel Stottlemeir taught Small a different grip on one of his piches, I don't remember which pitch. Small credits this with a turn around in his career. He saw that Contreras was tipping his split finger pitch, he then had him continally show the split finger pitch and change the grip of the ball in the glove. As far as Weaver's concerned, it's much easier to play for a team, detroit, which is not expected to compete. Is it Stottlemeir's fault that weaver couldn't handle NY where the crowd boos unmercifully if you don't produce.As I recall, Contreras always started with the split-finger grip and then changed in the glove. It was the changing in the glove that was tipping the pitch because batters could pick up the wiggle. And I don't recall Stottlemeyer correcting that problem. He was still doing it when he came to the White Sox.

samram

12-13-2005, 10:36 AM

I love posts like these, especially from an apparent clubhouse insider.

Seriously, where do people come up with this kind of stuff?

There are some people who believe that anyone not on the White Sox is bad in the clubhouse.

Tejada- bad in the clubhouse
Thome- not named Aaron Rowand, so bad in the clubhouse
Vazquez- not on the Sox, bad in the clubhouse
Griffey, Nomar, and so on

Paulwny

12-13-2005, 10:37 AM

All I can point to is a consistently underperforming staff when not headed by the likes of Clemens & Pettite. There's a decent list of guys who performed poorly in NY and better either before or after that. This includes Loaiza, Contreras, Vazquez, Weaver. At some point, coaching becomes the common factor.

I'll just say I'm extremely happy that we have Coop and leave it at that. I'm fairly confident that if Vazquez come here that he'll pitch well. I think it could easily be a Garcia situation where Javier is a very strong #2 with some #1 type of performances & upside.

However, I am in favor of no deal that sends away Chris Young or Jerry Owens along with Garland/Contreras.

Did I say I wasn't happy with Coop?
Who do you think developed Pettite, Rivera, Gooden, etal?

Paulwny

12-13-2005, 10:40 AM

[quote=Ol' No. 2]As I recall, Contreras always started with the split-finger grip and then changed in the glove. It was the changing in the glove that was tipping the pitch because batters could pick up the wiggle. And I don't recall Stottlemeyer correcting that problem. He was still doing it when he came to the White Sox.[/q

I get to see most of the yankmee games , I remeber it being mentioned that Stottlemyre had Contreras show the split finger and then change the grip in the glove.

Flight #24

12-13-2005, 10:43 AM

Did I say I wasn't happy with Coop?
Who do you think developed Pettite, Rivera, Gooden, etal?

My point is that I don't have any direct knowledge of what Stottlemyre does or doesn't do, just that the results from his staff of late have not been great and that guys who have struggled with the Yanks have fared better elsewhere. Whether that's because of him, because of other NY factors, or whatever I dont know. But I do know that I believe that in Chicago and with Ozzie & Coop, I like the chances of talented pitchers to perform regardless of how they've done in NY or other places.

spawn

12-13-2005, 10:43 AM

As long as the Snakes are sending along the $3M a year paid by the Yankees, I'd do this deal. Given a choice, I'd send Garland over Contreras, primarily because I think it will be more likely to re-sign Contreras at a reasonable price after 2006.
My sentiments exactly. I don't think Jon really wants to be here. Contreras does.

D. TODD

12-13-2005, 10:43 AM

If they are going to lose Jon after this year then Javier will be a good replacement since he is under contract for two years. His stuff is better then Jon's in my opinion. If his attitude is good then I do not see a downside in this deal, considering Garland may be gone after this year.

patbooyah

12-13-2005, 10:46 AM

i can think of nothing i'd rather do to someone who refuses a 3 year contract with our beloved sox than send him to arizona.

34 Inch Stick

12-13-2005, 10:47 AM

. Contreas or Garland / prospect for Vazquez. !

Why would the Sox include a prospect when they are sending the superior pitcher with a better contract.

Tekijawa

12-13-2005, 10:48 AM

Can we move this to what's the score so I don't have to catch my breath everytime I see it pop up in the club house... I'd do it if we got some cash, say the difference between Jon's Arbitration winning and Javi's contract?

beckett21

12-13-2005, 10:52 AM

There are some people who believe that anyone not on the White Sox is bad in the clubhouse.

Tejada- bad in the clubhouse
Thome- not named Aaron Rowand, so bad in the clubhouse
Vazquez- not on the Sox, bad in the clubhouse
Griffey, Nomar, and so on

That must be it.

Seriously, when has Vazquez's character ever been in question? It really bothers me when people just make things up to suit their argument.

I really wanted Javier back when the Sox signed Bartolo *another bacon double cheeseburger please* Colon instead. I'd rather get someone of quality for Garland rather than just losing him at the end of the season.

This was the same argument made to trade Konerko last offseason, so this kind of move would obviously be risky. But now that we have one World Series Championship under our belts, the way I look at it is that we are playing with house money. :cool:

Jjav829

12-13-2005, 10:55 AM

Is it just me or shouldn't the Sox get a prospect as well? I mean, Vazquez is only signed for 1 year more, makes more $, is older, is coming off a much worse season, and is not playoff tested.

I'd want $ in return and at least one decent prospect/useful player or no deal. JG is a FA next year, but that doesn't mean we have to get screwed in this deal.

It's just you.

Garland or Contreras for Vazquez is a very fair deal.

I would do either one. Kenny is trying to buy low and sell high here. I'll trust him with whatever decision he makes here.

infohawk

12-13-2005, 11:09 AM

Garland for Vazquez may not be a bad deal at all. I'm sure the motivation is the present overvaluation of pitchers on the market. Some of these pitchers are getting insane deals. KW probably wants to lock as many pitchers up as he can for the next couple of years and avoid overpaying for a free-agent or having to settle for a middling sort of pitcher in order to keep resources available for other needs.

PaulDrake

12-13-2005, 11:23 AM

I hate when Kenny is enamored with a player this much. Vasquez is a sub .500 career pitcher, who had an almost 4.50 era in the crappy national league last year. I think he sucks. This deal makes no sense because he makes a ton of money. Keep Jon. Keep Jose and try to repeat. Then take your chances signing which ever you want to keep. To me, this would make repeating much tougher. I'm with you. I don't understand why so many are so keen on Vazquez. This trade gives me the creeps.

wulfy

12-13-2005, 11:27 AM

Admins - please delete if this has been posted already. (My apologies if so.)

This was buried in today's New York Daily News (http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/baseball/story/374340p-318162c.html):

CHICAGO WAY: Javier Vazquez, who has piqued the Mets' interest, may be on the verge of getting shipped to the Windy City. A baseball insider suggested the White Sox are the most likely destination for the Diamondbacks pitcher, possibly leading to a trade involving Jon Garland (a free agent after the 2006 season) or Jose Contreras.

Admins - please delete if this has been posted already. (My apologies if so.)

This was buried in today's New York Daily News (http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/baseball/story/374340p-318162c.html):

If its for Garland....do it! He's as good as gone anyways since he doesnt seem like he'd like to remain with the Sox. And if thats the case...be gone Jon. He'll probably end up on a west cost team to spend more time with his GF. Jose we need to keep around and i think he still has a better upside than Jon does.

JorgeFabregas

12-13-2005, 11:38 AM

I don't understand the trade interest in this guy. He's bad and overpaid. What's the appeal?

NSSoxFan

12-13-2005, 11:41 AM

In Kenny we trust.

HomeFish

12-13-2005, 11:42 AM

I saw Vasquez come into US Cellular Field in 2003 and absolutely shut us down while wearing Yankee pinstripes. Somehow, I think that's the last time Vasquez shuts anyone done on the South Side.

ChiSoxRowand

12-13-2005, 11:44 AM

I don't like this trade. But if we are going to do it I say give up Garland rather than Contreras. And yes, we should get a prospect back in return, too. Conor Jackson?

caulfield12

12-13-2005, 11:55 AM

now
I don't like this trade. But if we are going to do it I say give up Garland rather than Contreras. And yes, we should get a prospect back in return, too. Conor Jackson?

Okay, now we´re going to get one of their best prospects and Vazquez for Garland, who they are probably going to lose after next season? Makes a lot of sense for the White Sox, but none for the D-Backs, who are still trying to build a contending team and shed the likes of Green and Glaus.

The only way this would happen is if the White Sox sent $6-8 million WITH Garland to get Jackson, and that would make even less sense than doing nothing.

Flight #24

12-13-2005, 11:55 AM

I don't understand the trade interest in this guy. He's bad and overpaid. What's the appeal?

That's 3 pretty dominant years followed by a bad one and a mediocre-to-bad one. The question is why. If healthy (and he could be wearing down after all the innings), this guy's got the talent but supposedly has mental issues. That's been something Ozzie & Coop can work with, which means Vazquez on the Sox could be Contreras redux in terms of dominance.

By comparison, in his breakout year, Garland put up 221IP / 3.50ERA / 1.17WHIP / 115Ks. Yes, he had a better year and is younger, but Vazquez is signed for an extra year and has strong peripherals. Those aren't the be-all/end-all, but they are important factors.

voodoochile

12-13-2005, 11:59 AM

now

Okay, now we´re going to get one of their best prospects and Vazquez for Garland, who they are probably going to lose after next season? Makes a lot of sense for the White Sox, but none for the D-Backs, who are still trying to build a contending team and shed the likes of Green and Glaus.

The only way this would happen is if the White Sox sent $6-8 million WITH Garland to get Jackson, and that would make even less sense than doing nothing.

Depends on how eager the D-Backs are to shed salary. If they expect to trade an expensive front line pitcher for an inexpensive front line pitcher (even if just for a year - in reality they only have Vasquez for two years anyway) then they either need to be prepared to throw in another player or a whole lot of $$$.

I understand that the trade on paper strictly talking about stats and expected records is even, but the money situation changes things dramatically.

JorgeFabregas

12-13-2005, 12:01 PM

A 3.9 ERA is not dominant in the national league. If your WHIP is consistently better than your ERA then you are likely not a good pitcher with runners on.

Whitesox4ever

12-13-2005, 12:03 PM

From fox sports.com
The White Sox are making a "strong, under the radar" bid to trade for Diamondbacks right-hander Javier Vazquez, according to a source with knowledge of the negotiations.

The package of players that the Diamondbacks would receive is still being negotiated, but right-hander Jon Garland is high on Arizona's wish list, a second source said.
The Diamondbacks also need a center fielder, and Chris Young, who played for the White Sox at Class AA last season, has been part of the discussions.
The Mets also are pursuing Vazquez, offering a package that likely would start with right-hander Kris Benson.
The Nationals' bid for Vazquez stalled when they traded one of the Diamondbacks' desired chips, outfielder Brad Wilkerson, to the Rangers for second baseman Alfonso Soriano.
Garland, 26, is a free agent at the end of next season, and given the inflation in the market, he figures to command a whopping contract.
He produced 18 regular-season wins and two postseason victories last season. He also has averaged more than 200 innings in four full seasons as a starter.
Vazquez, 29, will earn $11.5 million in 2006 and $12.5 million in '07, but the Diamondbacks received money when they acquired him from the Yankees, reducing their obligation by $3 million per season.
One sticking point in the trade negotiations has been the Diamondbacks' insistence that Vazquez's new team pay his entire salary, enabling the D-Backs to keep the Yankees' money. The teams that want Vazquez would be more willing to part with better talent if they were paying him reduced salaries of $8.5 million and $9.5 million over the next two seasons.

That's 3 pretty dominant years followed by a bad one and a mediocre-to-bad one. The question is why. If healthy (and he could be wearing down after all the innings), this guy's got the talent but supposedly has mental issues. That's been something Ozzie & Coop can work with, which means Vazquez on the Sox could be Contreras redux in terms of dominance.

By comparison, in his breakout year, Garland put up 221IP / 3.50ERA / 1.17WHIP / 115Ks. Yes, he had a better year and is younger, but Vazquez is signed for an extra year and has strong peripherals. Those aren't the be-all/end-all, but they are important factors.

Maybe it´s the mediocrity of the Garland-Crede years, but I have never fallen in love with either of these two guys like some have, especially Garland.

I´ll take my chances with OG, Cooper, El Duque and Contreras straightening Vazquez out over a nasty arbitration case with Garland and a season of accusations back and forth like Magglio´s 2004 season and off-season.

Halfway through 2005, the majority of Sox fans were willing to throw Contreras to the lions...even straight up for Kip Wells, lol.

I think Vazquez has the ability to be another stud with the White Sox...and I would bet on him over Garland any day of the week, because when he´s on, he can dominate. JG is just not that type of pitcher...he´s always one bad pitch away from letting the other team back in the game.

voodoochile

12-13-2005, 12:05 PM

Maybe it´s the mediocrity of the Garland-Crede years, but I have never fallen in love with either of these two guys like some have, especially Garland.

I´ll take my chances with OG, Cooper, El Duque and Contreras straightening Vazquez out over a nasty arbitration case with Garland and a season of accusations back and forth like Magglio´s 2004 season and off-season.

Halfway through 2005, the majority of Sox fans were willing to throw Contreras to the lions...even straight up for Kip Wells, lol.

I think Vazquez has the ability to be another stud with the White Sox...and I would bet on him over Garland any day of the week, because when he´s on, he can dominate. JG is just not that type of pitcher...he´s always one bad pitch away from letting the other team back in the game.

Were we watching the same JG this past season? The man dominated for long periods of time including the ALCS performance which may have been the best of the lot in that amazing 4 game run.

Whitesox4ever

12-13-2005, 12:12 PM

Deege (Champaign): Rumor has it that the White Sox are on the verge of making a deal with the D-Backs to acquire Javier Vazquez. A bit puzzling, since Ozzie Guillen wanted to leave his pitching staff untouched. Do you see this deal going down? Thanks.

The White Sox don't seem like the most logical landing spot for Vazquez, but I did hear some rumblings about that at the winter meetings in Dallas. Kenny Williams likes to make big moves, and that one would surely qualify

caulfield12

12-13-2005, 12:12 PM

Were we watching the same JG this past season? The man dominated for long periods of time including the ALCS performance which may have been the best of the lot in that amazing 4 game run.

It doesn´t matter, because we are not going to pay him $10-11 million per season in any type of pitching market.

He has a season like the second half of 2005 and he is still going to get $8-9.5 million if pitchers like Kenny Rogers can get the deal he got last week for a pitcher well into his 40´s. Can you really imagine KW paying that type of money based on ONE SINGLE 3 month period of dominance out of six years in the big leagues...more money than Buehrle, Contreras and Garcia? That´s not going to happen.

WhiteSoxFan84

12-13-2005, 12:12 PM

I want no part of Shawn Green. He had one very good season in Toronto and parlayed that into a huge deal with the Dodgers. We might as well get JD Drew while we are at it, or Travis Lee.

Travis Lee was never near Shawn Green status and JD Drew, in the last 3 years combined, probably has not played as many games as Green has averaged per season over the past 6-7 years.

And adding another left-handed power hitter to play at the cell and hit after Thome/Konerko and before Dye/Pierzynski? It's a pipe dream, I know, but it would be great.

hi8is

12-13-2005, 12:14 PM

"Knowing how Byrnes hasnt "Budged" so they better put together a nice package...I can see Arizona asking for Brian Anderson a top prospect and hopefully Neal Cotts along with Garland"

thats from the dimond backs fan fourm (mlb)

fing hysterical

i just about feel out of my chair laughing my arse off
HAHAHAHAHA

JorgeFabregas

12-13-2005, 12:14 PM

So you're say Vasquez is worth more money than Garland? :?:

caulfield12

12-13-2005, 12:15 PM

Depends on how eager the D-Backs are to shed salary. If they expect to trade an expensive front line pitcher for an inexpensive front line pitcher (even if just for a year - in reality they only have Vasquez for two years anyway) then they either need to be prepared to throw in another player or a whole lot of $$$.

I understand that the trade on paper strictly talking about stats and expected records is even, but the money situation changes things dramatically.

The D-Backs are still well in the red ink from what I have heard...and all reports point to them wanting to keep the Yankees money, which is the same way Contreras became affordable to us.

Not sure how inexpensive JG will be though...probably somewhere around $6.75-7.50 million I would guess.

I just know they are not going to give us Conor Jackson in this trade....maybe a prospect between 4th-6th in their Top 10.

Flight #24

12-13-2005, 12:18 PM

From fox sports.com
The White Sox are making a "strong, under the radar" bid to trade for Diamondbacks right-hander Javier Vazquez, according to a source with knowledge of the negotiations.

The package of players that the Diamondbacks would receive is still being negotiated, but right-hander Jon Garland is high on Arizona's wish list, a second source said.
The Diamondbacks also need a center fielder, and Chris Young, who played for the White Sox at Class AA last season, has been part of the discussions.

No way Jose on Garland+Young or Contreras+Young. Not even if they send along the Yanks $$$. No way, no how. Straight up should be fine. They get a younger, similar cost player for a guy who they're being forced to trade.

The concern would be if the anticipated Garland arb award is going to put them over budget and so they deal for Vazquez+cash instead and give up a Young to make it happen. That would be bad, IMO.

Flight #24

12-13-2005, 12:21 PM

So you're say Vasquez is worth more money than Garland? :?:

Similar money, IMO. Before hitting NY, he was viewed as almost an elite starter, on par with a guy like Colon. The question on him is the past 2 years. The question on Garland is whether he's really turned the corner or not.

The key is that Javier is signed for 2 years v. Garland being a 1-yr rental right now (even for the Sox).

WhiteSoxFan84

12-13-2005, 12:21 PM

A question for you guys to ponder; have you wondered how Vazquez would affect our team's chemistry? This guy did nothing but bitch and moan when the Yankees were looking to trade him. He was demanding an AL team close to Puerto Rico or whereever he wanted to be close to. As much as I think Ozzie Guillen can control any player, this guy maybe a little too much for even Oz.

chitown13

12-13-2005, 12:22 PM

FOXSports.com's Ken Rosenthal is also reporting the White Sox's interest in Javier Vazquez and says Jon Garland and Chris Young have been part of the trade discussions.
The White Sox can't give up both. Still, they may consider Garland expendable, mostly because he'll be tough to re-sign when he becomes a free agent next winter. A flyball pitcher, Vazquez hardly seems like the best choice for the White Sox. The team plays in the best home run park in the AL. Dec. 13 - 1:12 pm et
Source: FOXSports.com (http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/story/5163266)

Optipessimism

12-13-2005, 12:30 PM

FOXSports.com's Ken Rosenthal is also reporting the White Sox's interest in Javier Vazquez and says Jon Garland and Chris Young have been part of the trade discussions.
The White Sox can't give up both. Still, they may consider Garland expendable, mostly because he'll be tough to re-sign when he becomes a free agent next winter. A flyball pitcher, Vazquez hardly seems like the best choice for the White Sox. The team plays in the best home run park in the AL. Dec. 13 - 1:12 pm et
Source: FOXSports.com (http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/story/5163266)

I think they forgot to talk about the part where the Sox also get Brandon Webb, which of course makes this deal APPEALING to the White Sox.

I wouldn't do Young for Vazquez straight up, not without a full season under BA's belt. If KW wants to deal Jon, listen to some offers for God's sakes. I'm sure he can get something much better than this crap.

Realist

12-13-2005, 12:30 PM

Vasquez would fit in with the Sox for one really good reason. Nobody runs on him and we're going to have A.J. behind the plate again next year.

If this trade goes through, we'll have to trust that Coop will turn him into another Contreras and we don't end up with another Ritchie.

The only thing that's certain is uncertainty.

Flight #24

12-13-2005, 12:34 PM

FOXSports.com's Ken Rosenthal is also reporting the White Sox's interest in Javier Vazquez and says Jon Garland and Chris Young have been part of the trade discussions.
The White Sox can't give up both. Still, they may consider Garland expendable, mostly because he'll be tough to re-sign when he becomes a free agent next winter. A flyball pitcher, Vazquez hardly seems like the best choice for the White Sox. The team plays in the best home run park in the AL. Dec. 13 - 1:12 pm et
Source: FOXSports.com (http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/story/5163266)

KW: Josh, how about Garland for Vazquez?
Byrnes: OK, but you need to throw in Chris Young as well
KW: (click)

Rosenthal: Chris Young was part of the Sox-Snakes discussions around Javier Vazquez.

hi8is

12-13-2005, 12:35 PM

I think they forgot to talk about the part where the Sox also get Brandon Webb, which of course makes this deal APPEALING to the White Sox.

I wouldn't do Young for Vazquez straight up, not without a full season under BA's belt. If KW wants to deal Jon, listen to some offers for God's sakes. I'm sure he can get something much better than this crap.

where did you see anything about webb being involved in this deal? let me guess, the mlb boards

ChiSoxLifer

12-13-2005, 12:38 PM

Foxsports reports the Sox are after Javier Vasquez and have offered Chris Young and Garland. First of all, this makes absolutely no sense. Vasquez makes $11 mil per season even though the Yanks are paying about $3 mil of it per year. Vasquez was getting rocked in the NL and I would expect more of the same in the AL. I am very weary of obtaining NL pitchers. More often than not, their ERAs will climb in the AL. I wouldn't even trade Duque straight up for Vasquez. Maybe KW thinks Garland was a one year wonder and doesn't believe he'll be able to sign him to an extension. No way I make this trade.

caulfield12

12-13-2005, 12:38 PM

I think they forgot to talk about the part where the Sox also get Brandon Webb, which of course makes this deal APPEALING to the White Sox.

I wouldn't do Young for Vazquez straight up, not without a full season under BA's belt. If KW wants to deal Jon, listen to some offers for God's sakes. I'm sure he can get something much better than this crap.

For a second, I thought we were also going to get the hot blonde softball pitcher at all our games again, but she is engaged to Casey Daigle instead.

where did you see anything about webb being involved in this deal? let me guess, the mlb boards

I think that he was only implying that if the Sox are giving up Garland and a top prospect, that Arizona needs to give up more than just Vazquez.

I agree that anything beyond Garland for Vazquez straight-up would be grossly overpaying.

voodoochile

12-13-2005, 12:43 PM

It doesn´t matter, because we are not going to pay him $10-11 million per season in any type of pitching market.

He has a season like the second half of 2005 and he is still going to get $8-9.5 million if pitchers like Kenny Rogers can get the deal he got last week for a pitcher well into his 40´s. Can you really imagine KW paying that type of money based on ONE SINGLE 3 month period of dominance out of six years in the big leagues...more money than Buehrle, Contreras and Garcia? That´s not going to happen.

No, but they don't have to either. They can go to arbitration and probably end up in the area you suggested in your next post.

That means the DBacks could too and that means they get a similar quality pitcher and save a guaranteed 17M prior to trading or signing Garland to a longer term deal next season. That kind of monetary savings doesn't come free.

Tekijawa

12-13-2005, 12:45 PM

2nd of all this is the 18th thread started about this and it's not even in the right area for RUMORS!

caulfield12

12-13-2005, 12:46 PM

Foxsports reports the Sox are after Javier Vasquez and have offered Chris Young and Garland. First of all, this makes absolutely no sense. Vasquez makes $11 mil per season even though the Yanks are paying about $3 mil of it per year. Vasquez was getting rocked in the NL and I would expect more of the same in the AL. I am very weary of obtaining NL pitchers. More often than not, their ERAs will climb in the AL. I wouldn't even trade Duque straight up for Vasquez. Maybe KW thinks Garland was a one year wonder and doesn't believe he'll be able to sign him to an extension. No way I make this trade.

Please try to put this together with the other thread. You´re making everyone think the trade has gone through and is done, instead of speculation.

Realist

12-13-2005, 12:50 PM

I've lost count. Is this the 5th or 6th thread started in the Clubhouse on this subject? :?:

What's the score?

Tekijawa

12-13-2005, 12:55 PM

anything but a strait up trade and it's a no deal, unless it's borchard...

caulfield12

12-13-2005, 12:56 PM

No, but they don't have to either. They can go to arbitration and probably end up in the area you suggested in your next post.

That means the DBacks could too and that means they get a similar quality pitcher and save a guaranteed 17M prior to trading or signing Garland to a longer term deal next season. That kind of monetary savings doesn't come free.

How do they save $17 million?

They´re paying Vazquez $8.5 million and $9.5 million in 06 and 07, after the Yankees´ subsidy.

If the D-Backs took Garland in trade, they would have to pay him through arbitration for one year (saving approximately $1.5 to 2.0 million for this season) or sign him long-term (like the Sox did with Garcia) for more per season than they would be paying Vazquez.

Arguably, if they kept the money, they would be saving $7.5-8.0 million dollars. However, the odds of KW taking on that contract, $11.5 and $12.5 million respectively, is approximately ZERO.

The only way this would happen is if the White Sox received two top prospects, similar to the Gio-Haigwood deal. Like a Brandon Webb and Connor Jackson or similar prospect.

The White Sox have never been on the side of one of these deals where they actually give money to get prospects though.

They saved the money on Thome and Everett, giving up Gio, Haigwood, Rupe, Webster and Francisco.

They also saved money on Durham for one-half year to get Adkins.

DaleJRFan

12-13-2005, 01:03 PM

I'm sorry, but this trade speculation sucks. The concept of this trade sucks.

The only way this deal makes ANY sense is if the DBacks include Alex Cintron or Chad Tracy. Why on earth would KW take on a BIG contract for a mediorce pitcher.. giving up a guy who was arguably the best pitcher for half the season in the World Series run?? The mere mention of Chris Young should tell us all this is "rumor" is forsaken of truth.

Garland was a BIG part of why the Sox were so damn good in the first half. Anyone remember 8-0?? Or the back to back 4 hit shutouts? He dominated the Angels. Sure, he gave up some early runs to Houston, but he settled down and threw 7 strong innings. Besides, only 2 of the 4 runs he allowed were even earned.

I'd take my chances with Jon Garland for another year and hope for the best next off-season... as opposed to making this move.

Garland for 1 year @ 8 million > Vasquez for 2 years @ 12 million

White Sox Randy

12-13-2005, 01:06 PM

Maybe it's part one of a two parter - let's hope !

Chris Young and Duque for Vazquez. Then, Garland and Uribe to Baltimore for Tejada.

Flight #24

12-13-2005, 01:12 PM

Maybe it's part one of a two parter - let's hope !

Chris Young and Duque for Vazquez. Then, Garland and Uribe to Baltimore for Tejada.

OK, THAT I would do. But there isn't a pink deep enough for the O's to take that for Miggy. IMO, that package starts with Garland+Uribe+Young. And even that is something that I'd be sorely tempted to take....

caulfield12

12-13-2005, 01:13 PM

I'm sorry, but this trade speculation sucks. The concept of this trade sucks.

The only way this deal makes ANY sense is if the DBacks include Alex Cintron or Chad Tracy. Why on earth would KW take on a BIG contract for a mediorce pitcher.. giving up a guy who was arguably the best pitcher for half the season in the World Series run?? The mere mention of Chris Young should tell us all this is "rumor" is forsaken of truth.

Garland was a BIG part of why the Sox were so damn good in the first half. Anyone remember 8-0?? Or the back to back 4 hit shutouts? He dominated the Angels. Sure, he gave up some early runs to Houston, but he settled down and threw 7 strong innings. Besides, only 2 of the 4 runs he allowed were even earned.

I'd take my chances with Jon Garland for another year and hope for the best next off-season... as opposed to making this move.

Garland for 1 year @ 8 million > Vasquez for 2 years @ 12 million

I think you mean Garland for one year versus Vazquez for 2 years at $18 million or $24 million, depending on the Yankees cash payments

We have no need for Cintron with Mackowiak now on the roster.

Tracy....he´s a 1B, which there is no room for with the White Sox. He certainly is not a CF, and there´s no way they would give him up as part of this deal, although he would be a nice replacement for Dye and more outfield insurance with Mackowiak to supplement any flops by the four young outfielders in the big leagues.

DaleJRFan

12-13-2005, 01:19 PM

I think you mean Garland for one year versus Vazquez for 2 years at $18 million or $24 million, depending on the Yankees cash payments

I meant annual salary. Whatever Garland gets in Arb + what he brings to the Sox is vastly superior to having Vasquez for 2 seasons at whatever the Sox would end up paying him...

Stop picking on me! You knew what I meant! :D:

We have no need for Cintron with Mackowiak now on the roster.

Cintron is a switchhitter who can play 3B, SS and 2B. He'd fit in with any team no matter who the backup 3B/CF is.

Tracy....he´s a 1B, which there is no room for with the White Sox. He certainly is not a CF, and there´s no way they would give him up as part of this deal, although he would be a nice replacement for Dye and more outfield insurance with Mackowiak to supplement any flops by the four young outfielders in the big leagues.

I was dropping names, simply trying to make the point that if AZ wants to dump Vasquez, his salary and "I don't want to play here" attitude onto the Sox, they had better package some upside with him. Tracy is a Gload-type defender... can play the OF and 1B, but can hit the CRAP outa the ball. I agree with ya, I think we're set with 1B and OF for a few years... :cool:

Flight #24

12-13-2005, 01:28 PM

I was dropping names, simply trying to make the point that if AZ wants to dump Vasquez, his salary and "I don't want to play here" attitude onto the Sox, they had better package some upside with him. Tracy is a Gload-type defender... can play the OF and 1B, but can hit the CRAP outa the ball. I agree with ya, I think we're set with 1B and OF for a few years... :cool:

This is ludicrous. The guy simply said he wanted to be closer to his family and exercised his right to do so. If he had a buyout and exercised it to get more $$$, no one would blink twice at it. Instead, he has an opt-out where he CAN'T get more $$$, but wants to use it to see him family more. What a jerk!

Vazquez = Contreras. Great talent, hasn't put it all together for a winning team (yet). He's never been considered a cancer or clubhouse lawyer, the worst things that can be said about him attitude-wise are that his family is important to him, and he didn't like NY. There's no rumors I've heard of of laziness, being a bad teammate, etc.

And if there are, IIRC Ozzie would know of them from being in Montreal with him. I trust KW/Ozz/Coop on this one - if they think they can do for Vazquez what they did for Contreras and Garland, it's a great 1-1 swap because you'll save $$$ and lock the guy in for an extra year.

caulfield12

12-13-2005, 01:29 PM

I meant annual salary. Whatever Garland gets in Arb + what he brings to the Sox is vastly superior to having Vasquez for 2 seasons at whatever the Sox would end up paying him...

Stop picking on me! You knew what I meant! :D:

Cintron is a switchhitter who can play 3B, SS and 2B. He'd fit in with any team no matter who the backup 3B/CF is.

I was dropping names, simply trying to make the point that if AZ wants to dump Vasquez, his salary and "I don't want to play here" attitude onto the Sox, they had better package some upside with him. Tracy is a Gload-type defender... can play the OF and 1B, but can hit the CRAP outa the ball. I agree with ya, I think we're set with 1B and OF for a few years... :cool:

I don´t think KW is interested in Cintron anymore. Obviously Timo Perez and Willie Harris might be gone, but Cintron brings many of the same characteristics that Ozuna and Mackowiak do. Now you can argue Cintron over Ozuna, certainly, but I think we will stand pat there now. Cintron can play SS, which is a huge advantage over Ozuna.

Now, of course, you can argue that Valido and Lopez could play SS too if Uribe went down, but neither is as MLB ready to play everyday like Cintron.

Another player I have always liked is Castro with Minnesota. They have about 4 infielders too many and will have to part with at least two.

Unless you're 100% sure that Garland's going to maintain or progress from '05 to '06, Vazquez is likely to give you similar or better #s and provide the extra year at a lower salary. From an upside perspective, it's Garland repeating his 2005 v. Vazquez returning to his 2000-2003 form under Coop/Ozzie.

KRS1

12-13-2005, 01:35 PM

I meant annual salary. Whatever Garland gets in Arb + what he brings to the Sox is vastly superior to having Vasquez for 2 seasons at whatever the Sox would end up paying him...

Stop picking on me! You knew what I meant! :D:

Cintron is a switchhitter who can play 3B, SS and 2B. He'd fit in with any team no matter who the backup 3B/CF is.

I was dropping names, simply trying to make the point that if AZ wants to dump Vasquez, his salary and "I don't want to play here" attitude onto the Sox, they had better package some upside with him. Tracy is a Gload-type defender... can play the OF and 1B, but can hit the CRAP outa the ball. I agree with ya, I think we're set with 1B and OF for a few years... :cool:

There are talks down here about signing Tracy long term moving him back to third so Conor Jackson can step in and be an everyday 1 bagger, and getting rid of Glaus. Mark Grace is absolutely anamored with this kid and feels he is the second coming of himself, and rightfully so IMO b/c he can rake, while he doesnt hit for all that much power he has about as sweet a swing as there is in the bigs these days. Also after seeing Vasquez suck it up in the worst division in baseball last year has me less than happy to hear this rumor to say the least.

voodoochile

12-13-2005, 01:53 PM

How do they save $17 million?

They´re paying Vazquez $8.5 million and $9.5 million in 06 and 07, after the Yankees´ subsidy.

If the D-Backs took Garland in trade, they would have to pay him through arbitration for one year (saving approximately $1.5 to 2.0 million for this season) or sign him long-term (like the Sox did with Garcia) for more per season than they would be paying Vazquez.

Arguably, if they kept the money, they would be saving $7.5-8.0 million dollars. However, the odds of KW taking on that contract, $11.5 and $12.5 million respectively, is approximately ZERO.

The only way this would happen is if the White Sox received two top prospects, similar to the Gio-Haigwood deal. Like a Brandon Webb and Connor Jackson or similar prospect.

The White Sox have never been on the side of one of these deals where they actually give money to get prospects though.

They saved the money on Thome and Everett, giving up Gio, Haigwood, Rupe, Webster and Francisco.

They also saved money on Durham for one-half year to get Adkins.

Either way they owe $24M to Vazquez over the next two seasons. If they trade him, they save the money they would have had to shell out personally ($18M) and still keep the payments from the Yankees ($6M).

So they would lose the 18M in salary they would have been on the hook for AND keep the $6M in payments, so after signing Garland they would be saving about $15-17M as I said.

In fact if they can win the arbitration case and pay Garland $6M over the coming season, they have no cash outlay (Yankees payment covers it) and they still have the use of a similar caliber pitcher for at least one season.

As I said early, that kind of cash savings doesn't come free.

ChiSoxRowand

12-13-2005, 02:11 PM

now

Okay, now we´re going to get one of their best prospects and Vazquez for Garland, who they are probably going to lose after next season? Makes a lot of sense for the White Sox, but none for the D-Backs, who are still trying to build a contending team and shed the likes of Green and Glaus.

The only way this would happen is if the White Sox sent $6-8 million WITH Garland to get Jackson, and that would make even less sense than doing nothing.

That's why it's in deep pink.

maurice

12-13-2005, 02:25 PM

Foxsports reports the Sox are after Javier Vasquez and have offered Chris Young and Garland.

There's no way that this report is true. Heck, Garland for Vasquez staight up favors Arizona, unless they're sending a considerable amount of cash in KW's direction.

This was mentioned before but cannot be overemphasized: Garland has pitched exclusively for an AL team, while Vasquez played most of his career in the NL. While Garland spent his entire MLB career pitching to DHs, Vasquez's unimpressive stats are skewed by hundreds of easy Ks / popups / groundouts by NL pitchers.

CPditka

12-13-2005, 02:36 PM

It boils down to Garland being a good fit for US Cellular and Vazquez being not. Why do you think Freddy is a road warrior. Becuase every park the sox play in on the road is more of a pitchers park than the Cell.

Garland @ Cell 1 Yr >> Vazquez @ Cell 2 Yrs

NardiWasHere

12-13-2005, 03:25 PM

In concept, I like the idea of this deal. KW locks that rotation spot up for an extra year, and gets a guy that has had success in the past.

What worries me:
-Trading a groundball pitcher for a flyball pitcher in the Cell
-Including the highly touted Young like some have said.

I'm on the fence. I don't have an opinion either way. Are my concerns valid? I want to like this deal. Someone convince me.

Jjav829

12-13-2005, 03:34 PM

The Score just mentioned that KW has not denied interest in Vazquez, but KW also mentioned that he would like to keep Garland and Contreras beyond next year.

If this thing goes down, it's going down tomorrow. Tomorrow is Wednesday. :D:

Chek2002

12-13-2005, 03:44 PM

ESPN 1000 sportscenter said Levine said Sox are interested in Vazquez.

Flight #24

12-13-2005, 03:51 PM

Levineline - The Sox have had conversations on Garland for Vazquez for a few weeks. They turned down a deal of Garland+a prospect for Vazquez. Garland turned down a deal of 3yr-$22-24M and wants more. Contreras was listed as a possibility more than as something that's actually been discussed.

Also, FWIW - Bruuuuuuuce mentioned Baltimore and Minnesota as potential Thomas destinations. And that Frank has still to prove to teams that he's healthy.

Corlose 15

12-13-2005, 04:38 PM

I do not want Vazquez on this team. Garland is a better pitcher. If Garland has another good year, which everybody seems worried about, the Sox are in a damn good position to repeat.

If the Sox win the Series again or make a deep postseason run, which they're better positioned to do with Garland than Vazquez, then they will be able to increase payroll again next year with the increased revenue. Worry about 2007 when we get there. Keep Jon Garland.

Sox reportedly attempting to deal Garland for Javier Vazquez. Arizona is insisting that the Sox include Chris Young. Developing...

EndemicSox

12-13-2005, 04:40 PM

:angry:

DaleJRFan

12-13-2005, 04:44 PM

:?: I just don't get it. I am seriously shaking my head right now. Why on earth would the Sox trade Garland AND Young for Vasquez??? It doesn't make ANY ****ing sense, at all. :angry:

nodiggity59

12-13-2005, 04:45 PM

:?: I just don't get it. I am seriously shaking my head right now. Why on earth would the Sox trade Garland AND Young for Vasquez??? It doesn't make ANY ****ing sense, at all. :angry:

Remembeer KW's history of giving up prospects for $. He may be getting bamboozled into including Young for $.

That would be awful, but JG for Javy I like.

nodiggity59

12-13-2005, 04:47 PM

I do not want Vazquez on this team. Garland is a better pitcher. If Garland has another good year, which everybody seems worried about, the Sox are in a damn good position to repeat.

If the Sox win the Series again or make a deep postseason run, which they're better positioned to do with Garland than Vazquez, then they will be able to increase payroll again next year with the increased revenue. Worry about 2007 when we get there. Keep Jon Garland.

Kepping MB, Fredy, AND Jon is absolutely impossible. In 08 that would cost us $36mil, minimum. Jon's gone after this year, it's just a question as to whether dealing him makes sense now.

samram

12-13-2005, 04:51 PM

:?: I just don't get it. I am seriously shaking my head right now. Why on earth would the Sox trade Garland AND Young for Vasquez??? It doesn't make ANY ****ing sense, at all. :angry:

Where does it say the Sox have offered Young? Nowhere. All reports say he is part of the discussions, most likely because the DBacks need a CF and they are asking for him. Just because they're asking for him doesn't mean the Sox will deal him. Relax.

Flight #24

12-13-2005, 04:53 PM

Remembeer KW's history of giving up prospects for $. He may be getting bamboozled into including Young for $.

That would be awful, but JG for Javy I like.

Please enlighten as to when exactly KW was "bamboozled" into giving up prospects. The great Mike Morse? You crying over the loss of Anthony Webster? Perhaps you pine for the stardom that is Jon Rauch and Gary Majewski?

For what it's worth, Bruce Levine reported the Sox offered a straight up swap. Arizona asked for a prospect and the Sox said no.

Let's end this "KW gives up a ton of prospects" crap. He trades a lot of minor leaguers, but to date, few if any actually amount to anything.

Frater Perdurabo

12-13-2005, 04:53 PM

Kepping MB, Fredy, AND Jon is absolutely impossible. In 08 that would cost us $36mil, minimum. Jon's gone after this year, it's just a question as to whether dealing him makes sense now.

This is the downside to the big PK deal. His $12 million per year might have been better spent trying to lock in the pitchers. Still, if the Sox repeat or at least go very deep in the 2006 playoffs, there's no reason they could not at least try to retain all three.

JB98

12-13-2005, 04:56 PM

I hate when Kenny is enamored with a player this much. Vasquez is a sub .500 career pitcher, who had an almost 4.50 era in the crappy national league last year. I think he sucks. This deal makes no sense because he makes a ton of money. Keep Jon. Keep Jose and try to repeat. Then take your chances signing which ever you want to keep. To me, this would make repeating much tougher.

I agree with this post 100 percent. Couldn't have said it better myself.

nodiggity59

12-13-2005, 05:05 PM

[quote=Flight #24]Please enlighten as to when exactly KW was "bamboozled" into giving up prospects. quote]

Can you read? I said "may be getting bamboozled" as in, in this particular case w/ Young, that would be getting bamboozled. I said nothing about the quality of his previous deals. I only said KW gives up extra players to save cash. That is well documented. I NEVER said it was a bad strategy. For the record, I'm probably one of the biggest KW supporters around here and I loved what he did, mostly, in the past. That being said, if KW feels he needs to kick in Young to complete this deal, expecially for the dollars he wants it at, he's getting bamboozled.

JB98

12-13-2005, 05:13 PM

This is the downside to the big PK deal. His $12 million per year might have been better spent trying to lock in the pitchers. Still, if the Sox repeat or at least go very deep in the 2006 playoffs, there's no reason they could not at least try to retain all three.

I wonder if the Sox would be willing to give five years to someone like Garland. They've been reluctant to give that many years to a pitcher ever since the Navarro debacle, and frankly, I agree with that policy. Less accomplished pitchers than JG (looks directly at A.J. Burnett) are getting $55 million over five years. I doubt the Sox would pony up that kind of contract for a pitcher (and I'm not sure they should), regardless of PK.

My philosophy would be to keep the starting rotation together, make another run in 2006, then evaluate where we're at next offseason.

caulfield12

12-13-2005, 05:19 PM

I wonder if the Sox would be willing to give five years to someone like Garland. They've been reluctant to give that many years to a pitcher ever since the Navarro debacle, and frankly, I agree with that policy. Less accomplished pitchers than JG (looks directly at A.J. Burnett) are getting $55 million over five years. I doubt the Sox would pony up that kind of contract for a pitcher (and I'm not sure they should), regardless of PK.

My philosophy would be to keep the starting rotation together, make another run in 2006, then evaluate where we're at next offseason.

I don´t think the PK deal and JG are related. In the sense that if the White Sox had a payroll of $90 million or $80 million, I still don´t think they would ever go over $9 million with Garland. The White Sox, even with all the most optimistic aspirations, are not going to be the type of club that can slug it out with the top 6-8 payroll teams in the league for someone like JG or potentially Contreras.

Philosophically, I don´t think the club should give JG more than Buehrle or Garcia until he proves that he´s that caliber of pitcher for an entire season...and, even then, I don´t like it.

Of course, that could change with another consistent season from Jon, but the White Sox are not going to go out and break the bank for him when they have a good minor league pitching pipeline and a recent history of developing projects like Loaiza and Contreras (not quite as cheap, lol, but subsidized by NY). Of course, the flip side of that is the lack of development from a Todd Ritchie. I think we now are overestimating Cooper´s ability to straighten out every Javier Vazquez or Sidney Ponson that comes our way.

CanBuehrleWait

12-13-2005, 05:33 PM

I wonder if the Sox would be willing to give five years to someone like Garland. They've been reluctant to give that many years to a pitcher ever since the Navarro debacle, and frankly, I agree with that policy. Less accomplished pitchers than JG (looks directly at A.J. Burnett) are getting $55 million over five years. I doubt the Sox would pony up that kind of contract for a pitcher (and I'm not sure they should), regardless of PK.
I agree except I can think of a pitcher who deserves such an extension:
:burly"I don't overpower but I sure as hell know how to picth"
Cubs hate aside he has this generation's Greg Maddux written all over him. If the Burnett's of the world are getting 11per then a lefty with his numbers will get 15mill per in 2 years. Lock him up now!!!
:hijacked:

That said right now I would field any reasonable offers for Garland (Vazquez included)

KRS1

12-13-2005, 05:35 PM

It boils down to Garland being a good fit for US Cellular and Vazquez being not. Why do you think Freddy is a road warrior. Becuase every park the sox play in on the road is more of a pitchers park than the Cell.

Garland @ Cell 1 Yr >> Vazquez @ Cell 2 Yrs

Exactly, Javi in the Cell=<overused chunks tag>. Guys I saw him pitch about five times in person last year and he was lackluster to say the least. I support KW in just about anything he does, but how does having a HR threat for a pitcher for 2 years help us in the slightest. Javier did have better stats than Jon but that is directly tied to the crappy hitters he faced in that division 50+ games last year, not to mention facing pitchers 3 times a game. Please kenny I'm begging you dont do it, even if it means having to let Jon go next year, it is not worth the 30 hr's Javi's gonna give up every year in our park.

Whitesox4ever

12-13-2005, 05:53 PM

Williams intends to keep the White Sox on top by staying two or three steps ahead of the game. Williams made it clear that Garland and Contreras "will be given the opportunity to stay beyond the 2006 season," with Garland, who is eligible for arbitration, already reportedly having turned down a three-year deal. One of the two could be included in a possible deal for Vazquez, who finished 11-15 with a 4.42 ERA last season, but has worked at least 198 innings in six straight seasons.
The White Sox actually would control Vazquez for three years. Since he demanded a trade, he gave up the right to be a free agent after his contract expires, so they would be able to offer him arbitration for the third year.
Garland figures to earn in the $6 million range through arbitration, but could be replaced by Brandon McCarthy in the rotation if he was shipped to another team. Of course, the White Sox would prefer to move Orlando 'El Duque' Hernandez and his $4.5 million salary, along with a prospect, setting up one of the best rotations in baseball with Mark Buehrle, Freddy Garcia, Vazquez, Garland and Contreras.
The goal for Williams is to make his team's top commodity even better. In the same sense, Williams will not be waiting too long for a response from Garland and Contreras in regard to their future on the South Side. Just read between the lines with Williams' ensuing comment.
"They will know when it's time to get serious," said Williams, when asked about the timetable his pitchers were working with in regard to deciding on the team's contract offers. Williams paused, before adding directly, "By the way, it's probably time for them to get serious."

KRS1

12-13-2005, 06:00 PM

I agree except I can think of a pitcher who deserves such an extension:
:burly"I don't overpower but I sure as hell know how to picth"
Cubs hate aside he has this generation's Greg Maddux written all over him. If the Burnett's of the world are getting 11per then a lefty with his numbers will get 15mill per in 2 years. Lock him up now!!!
:hijacked:

That said right now I would field any reasonable offers for Garland (Vazquez included)

You really think Mark would sign a long term deal for a couple million extra these next two years when he's already got 17m in the bank over that time, highly unlikely. I'm happy with us having him and Freddy through 07', hopefully by then Bmac will be be our #2(if Jon leaves), and a few minor leaguers step it up to enter the roto. Having Jon locked up would be a valuable asset as he obtains one of the best sinkers in the majors which should help our team succeed. After 07' we see where Mark is and if he wants to walk a couple hundred miles south, let him. We have a chance to keep Garland off the market now and we should do it. Jon is a horse with nasty stuff and should be in our plans over the next 5 years.

maurice

12-13-2005, 06:02 PM

Remembeer KW's history of giving up prospects for $. He may be getting bamboozled into including Young for $.

What's the opposite of deeppink?

Even if AZ agreed to pay 100% of Vasquez's salary, KW wouldn't give up both Garland and Young. At a minimum, AZ would have to add another valuable player to the deal.

gbergman

12-13-2005, 06:07 PM

Possible trade has been reported between the white sox, and diamondbacks. The trade would be for P Javier Vasquez for reportedly Jon Garland, and possibly AA centerfielder Chris Young

Ol' No. 2

12-13-2005, 06:08 PM

Keep in mind that the price is not determined by what any of us think is a good deal. The price is set by what other teams may be offering. From what I've read, not that many teams are interested, making it difficult for the Snakes to get any real return, since they HAVE to trade him. I'd do JG for Vazquez straight up if they included the $6M they're getting from the Yankees. Anything else: walk away, Kenny.

Out of curiousity how many dif. threads have been started under this topic.

Realist

12-13-2005, 06:16 PM

POTW^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Out of curiousity how many dif. threads have been started under this topic.

I lost count after 5.

Baby Fisk

12-13-2005, 06:17 PM

Keep in mind that the price is not determined by what any of us think is a good deal. The price is set by what other teams may be offering. From what I've read, not that many teams are interested, making it difficult for the Snakes to get any real return, since they HAVE to trade him. I'd do JG for Vazquez straight up if they included the $6M they're getting from the Yankees. Anything else: walk away, Kenny.
I agree with Mr. Fox. If a deal is going to happen, the D-Backs should take Garland and say "thank you Kenny."

Okay so let me get this straight, the big deal with all these Garland rumors is based solely on the fact that we dont want to give him a lot of money. At the same time we have suggestion of adding 20+million to our payroll for 2 overrated players who dont fit in with what we do or where we play. Sure Glaus would have 30= homers in our park but he'd also strike out 100+ times and be a butcher at 3 bag. Wow these speculations have to stop.

CubsfansareDRUNK

12-13-2005, 06:23 PM

its prolly not even gunna happen

CanBuehrleWait

12-13-2005, 06:23 PM

You really think Mark would sign a long term deal for a couple million extra these next two years when he's already got 17m in the bank over that time, highly unlikely. I'm happy with us having him and Freddy through 07', hopefully by then Bmac will be be our #2(if Jon leaves), and a few minor leaguers step it up to enter the roto. Having Jon locked up would be a valuable asset as he obtains one of the best sinkers in the majors which should help our team succeed. After 07' we see where Mark is and if he wants to walk a couple hundred miles south, let him. We have a chance to keep Garland off the market now and we should do it. Jon is a horse with nasty stuff and should be in our plans over the next 5 years.
It certainly isn't without precedence. Though in these cases arbitration, the Twins and Cards locked up Pujols and Santana with those two only two years away from free agency. Santana signed that contract after a Cy young year and is locked up for 3 more years at 10mill per. That is an absolute steal in this ridiculous market. I was just saying its something worth considering on our management's part.

y2j2785

12-13-2005, 06:24 PM

Okay so let me get this straight, the big deal with all these Garland rumors is based solely on the fact that we dont want to give him a lot of money. At the same time we have suggestion of adding 20+million to our payroll for 2 overrated players who dont fit in with what we do or where we play. Sure Glaus would have 30= homers in our park but he'd also strike out 100+ times and be a butcher at 3 bag. Wow these speculations have to stop.

I'm sorry it was only a suggestion.

KRS1

12-13-2005, 06:26 PM

It certainly isn't without precedence. Though in these cases arbitration, the Twins and Cards locked up Pujols and Santana with those two only two years away from free agency. Santana signed that contract after a Cy young year and is locked up for 3 more years at 10mill per. That is an absolute steal in this ridiculous market. I was just saying it something worth considering on our management's part.

Your right in that the key was those 2 had some siginficant arb. time left, and also in saying Johan for 10 a year is a steal, it's more of a raping if you ask me, whoops can I say that here?

Baby Fisk

12-13-2005, 06:26 PM

its prolly not even gunna happenI hope you are right CFAD. This trade does not make sense.

California Sox

12-13-2005, 06:35 PM

Don't doubt that something like this is in the works. I've got no problem with Vazquez. He's up or down, but basically a decent pitcher. However, KW tends to throw in an extra player into deals. If he throws Chris Young into this deal, I'll be pissed. :angry: Makes no sense to give up your best prospect straight up for Vazquez, let alone using him as a throw-in when you're also giving them an All Star who won 18 games and was lights out in the playoffs.

JB98

12-13-2005, 06:42 PM

Why not trade Garland, Crede, and a prospect for Vazquez and Glaus?

You're kidding, right?

Crede > Glaus, especially defensively
Garland > Vazquez

And then we're going to throw a prospect in too? Please...

soxfan43

12-13-2005, 06:43 PM

If the D-backs include the yanks money for javy, I'm sure they will insist on Young. So it comes down to is Young worth more than a few million over the next few years.

chisoxmike

12-13-2005, 06:46 PM

Just say no Kenny. Oh yeah, whats the score dude!

ChiSoxLifer

12-13-2005, 06:51 PM

Oh heck, even if it was Duque for Vasquez straight up I'd have to think about it for a minute.

KRS1

12-13-2005, 06:51 PM

You're kidding, right?

Crede > Glaus, especially defensively
Garland > Vazquez

And then we're going to throw a prospect in too? Please...

I wouldnt go that far, Troy is a superior hitter in every category accept maybe clutch hits in a career, but defensively Joe>>>>>>>>>>>Troy. There was a time when I considered Glaus the # 3rd baseman in the majors bhing only Chavez and Rolen, now after the back and arm troubles he's just in the middle of the pack of players I would consider.

Corlose 15

12-13-2005, 06:52 PM

Exactly, Javi in the Cell=<overused chunks tag>. Guys I saw him pitch about five times in person last year and he was lackluster to say the least. I support KW in just about anything he does, but how does having a HR threat for a pitcher for 2 years help us in the slightest. Javier did have better stats than Jon but that is directly tied to the crappy hitters he faced in that division 50+ games last year, not to mention facing pitchers 3 times a game. Please kenny I'm begging you dont do it, even if it means having to let Jon go next year, it is not worth the 30 hr's Javi's gonna give up every year in our park.

Very well said. Garland being on this team this year gives the Sox a better chance to win the WS. That should be the number 1 priority.

gr8mexico

12-13-2005, 06:55 PM

The rumors is that they might trade Garland or Contreras. but I have also heard it might be El Duque with Chris Young. That would make more sense because the Diamondbacks will clear them self of Javier's contract and will have a SP in the rotation for next year. The Sox are full of OF in the minors and will need SP after next year.Why not trade El Duque and Young for Javier and you can guarantee yourself a good SP for the 07 season just in case Garland doesn't resign with the Sox. I hope the Sox can pull of the trade. Has the rumor been reported on the radio.

Corlose 15

12-13-2005, 07:00 PM

The rumors is that they might trade Garland or Contreras. but I have also heard it might be El Duque with Chris Young. That would make more sense because the Diamondbacks will clear them self of Javier's contract and will have a SP in the rotation for next year. The Sox are full of OF in the minors and will need SP after next year.Why not trade El Duque and Young for Javier and you can guarantee yourself a good SP for the 07 season just in case Garland doesn't resign with the Sox. I hope the Sox can pull of the trade. Has the rumor been reported on the radio.

I guess that would be a better trade but what would Vazquez do this year? I think a lot of this depends on Lance Broadway and Ryan Sweeney's progress. I'm drooling about an Anderson/Sweeney, Owens, Young outfield in a couple years.

gr8mexico

12-13-2005, 07:02 PM

The White Sox actually would control Vazquez for three years. Since he demanded a trade, he gave up the right to be a free agent after his contract expires, so they would be able to offer him arbitration for the third year. Garland figures to earn in the $6 million range through arbitration, but could be replaced by Brandon McCarthy in the rotation if he was shipped to another team. Of course, the White Sox would prefer to move Orlando 'El Duque' Hernandez and his $4.5 million salary, along with a prospect, setting up one of the best rotations in baseball with Mark Buehrle, Freddy Garcia, Vazquez, Garland and Contreras. Now I'm drooling about that WOW!!!!!

Corlose 15

12-13-2005, 07:07 PM

The White Sox actually would control Vazquez for three years. Since he demanded a trade, he gave up the right to be a free agent after his contract expires, so they would be able to offer him arbitration for the third year. Garland figures to earn in the $6 million range through arbitration, but could be replaced by Brandon McCarthy in the rotation if he was shipped to another team. Of course, the White Sox would prefer to move Orlando 'El Duque' Hernandez and his $4.5 million salary, along with a prospect, setting up one of the best rotations in baseball with Mark Buehrle, Freddy Garcia, Vazquez, Garland and Contreras. Now I'm drooling about that WOW!!!!!

Doesn't that take you away from the original intent of the trade which is supposedly protection for "when" Garland bolts at the end of the season? All that does to me is stunt McCarthy's growth.

spawn

12-13-2005, 07:08 PM

The White Sox actually would control Vazquez for three years. Since he demanded a trade, he gave up the right to be a free agent after his contract expires, so they would be able to offer him arbitration for the third year. Garland figures to earn in the $6 million range through arbitration, but could be replaced by Brandon McCarthy in the rotation if he was shipped to another team. Of course, the White Sox would prefer to move Orlando 'El Duque' Hernandez and his $4.5 million salary, along with a prospect, setting up one of the best rotations in baseball with Mark Buehrle, Freddy Garcia, Vazquez, Garland and Contreras. Now I'm drooling about that WOW!!!!!
At least post the link you're copying this info from:

The White Sox actually would control Vazquez for three years. Since he demanded a trade, he gave up the right to be a free agent after his contract expires, so they would be able to offer him arbitration for the third year. Garland figures to earn in the $6 million range through arbitration, but could be replaced by Brandon McCarthy in the rotation if he was shipped to another team. Of course, the White Sox would prefer to move Orlando 'El Duque' Hernandez and his $4.5 million salary, along with a prospect, setting up one of the best rotations in baseball with Mark Buehrle, Freddy Garcia, Vazquez, Garland and Contreras.

The White Sox actually would control Vazquez for three years. Since he demanded a trade, he gave up the right to be a free agent after his contract expires, so they would be able to offer him arbitration for the third year. Garland figures to earn in the $6 million range through arbitration, but could be replaced by Brandon McCarthy in the rotation if he was shipped to another team. Of course, the White Sox would prefer to move Orlando 'El Duque' Hernandez and his $4.5 million salary, along with a prospect, setting up one of the best rotations in baseball with Mark Buehrle, Freddy Garcia, Vazquez, Garland and Contreras.

Yes, Vasquez would be an upgrade from Orlando, but I highly doubt he makes our staff any better. I would never put him in over Bmac considering what I saw from both guys last year. Brandon may have had a slow start but a 1 ERA against two of the best hitting teams at theri own park is pretty damn amazing. Let me just say this Javi does not fit in our park and would be an accident waiting to happen against hitting teams like the Indians and even Detoilet to a lesser extent. Man I wish I could talk to KW in person about how players like Edgardo Alfonso, or Hee-Soip Choi cracked the hell outta him on a regular basis. Now just imagine what Hafner or Maggs will do to him.

gr8mexico

12-13-2005, 07:16 PM

Doesn't that take you away from the original intent of the trade which is supposedly protection for "when" Garland bolts at the end of the season? All that does to me is stunt McCarthy's growth. The protection would be for the 07 season. Just in case Garland doesn't come back. But I would rather have the Sox sign Garland and let Contreras go because Contreras is alot older then Garland and that's when Brandon can come in to the rotation.

Corlose 15

12-13-2005, 07:21 PM

The protection would be for the 07 season. Just in case Garland doesn't come back. But I would rather have the Sox sign Garland and let Contreras go because Contreras is alot older then Garland and that's when Brandon can come in to the rotation.

I like Buehrle Garcia Contreras Garland McCarthy more than I like Buehrle Garland Vazquez Contreras Garcia. Does anyone know how Broadway is doing and if he'd be ready by '07 to be a serviceable replacement in case Garland leaves?

KRS1

12-13-2005, 07:24 PM

I like Buehrle Garcia Contreras Garland McCarthy more than I like Buehrle Garland Vazquez Contreras Garcia. Does anyone know how Broadway is doing and if he'd be ready by '07 to be a serviceable replacement in case Garland leaves?

All Ive heard up to this point is that him and Liotta are the two most likely to grab this spot if available. Also, does anyone have the word on Rafael Flores and his progression last year b/c Ive been waiting for him to crack our roto since they day we got him?

Forgot about Tracey, but witht the way some people are down on him I prolly shouldnt mention his name. I personally see him having a big year and jumping into our squad, either as a reliver or starter, in 07'.

sthbndsox

12-13-2005, 07:37 PM

I hope to god this isn't true... I dont like the looks of Vasquez at all.

spawn

12-13-2005, 07:41 PM

I remember people here ready to crucify Contreras the first half of last season, and he turned out to be our best pitcher in the second half. It's amazing wht a change of scenery and a good pitching coach will do for a player's confidence.

Black Jack

12-13-2005, 07:42 PM

This is one of the most ridiculous trade ideas I have ever heard of, I wouldn't even trade Young for Vazquez if they paid his entire salary. Vazquez was once a good pitcher, he is now a bad pitcher, a very bad pitcher, a very bad pitcher who makes 11.5 (!) million dollars next year. If Arizona offered us Vazquez FOR FREE I wouldn't accept, we have 6 pitchers on the team who make less and are a significantly better than Vazquez. I live in Arizona, I have seen Vazquez pitch, I have seen Vazquez talk on TV, Vazquez is a bad player and a bad person, he is more overrated than anyone I can think of. If we trade for this guy it would be the second coming of Jaime Navarro. DON'T DO IT KENNY!

batmanZoSo

12-13-2005, 07:45 PM

Garland > Vazquez

Garland + Young > Vazquez

Poop >This thread

DickAllen72

12-13-2005, 07:46 PM

I remember people here ready to crucify Contreras the first half of last season, and he turned out to be our best pitcher in the second half. It's amazing wht a change of scenery and a good pitching coach will do for a player's confidence.
You trade for what you think could be, but you pay for what is.

The Sox only gave up Loaiza for Contreras because both were not pitching very well at the time. You don't give up Garland after the year he just had plus your top prospect for Vazquez, who hasn't pitched well for a couple of years now.

I'd rather just offer Garland the same deal Konerko got.

spawn

12-13-2005, 07:53 PM

You trade for what you think could be, but you pay for what is.

The Sox only gave up Loaiza for Contreras because both were not pitching very well at the time. You don't give up Garland after the year he just had plus your top prospect for Vazquez, who hasn't pitched well for a couple of years now.

I'd rather just offer Garland the same deal Konerko got.
I'm not saying give up Garland...If we swapped El Duque for Vazquez, I'd be ok with that. But if KW thinks it's unlikely Garland will re-sign next year, then I say get something rather than have him walk away with no one to show for it.

delben91

12-13-2005, 07:54 PM

I'm not saying give up Garland...If we swapped El Duque for Vazquez, I'd be ok with that. But if KW thinks it's unlikely Garland will re-sign next year, then I say get something rather than have him walk away with no one to show for it.

Exactly. Garland for Vazquez straight up...yeah, I'd be able to stomach that. But if Kenny adds Young in...well...:o:

KRS1

12-13-2005, 08:03 PM

Exactly. Garland for Vazquez straight up...yeah, I'd be able to stomach that. But if Kenny adds Young in...well...:o:

Garland for Vasquez straight up, even if AZ pays 10 mil each year and pays the arb. in 08', is still a deal in favor of AZ. I just called my friend who works at the paper down here and he talked to the sports editor there and he laughed while saying,"if we get Garland for Vasquez, we automatically have the GM of the year." It's just stupid to ignore the fact that Javi is on a downslide and Jon is rising, and even dumber to trade in another run at the WS in 06' for the fact that one guy has a longer life of a contract.

Qdiddy

12-13-2005, 08:15 PM

You can't offer Garland the same deal Paulie got because he's going to demand a much higher price tag.

If Kenny Rogers got $8mil. a year and A.J Burnett got $12 Mil a year, "IF" Garland goes out a has a similar year as last year at his age your looking at paying Jon Garland around 14-15mil a year.

I can't ever imagine paying that much for Jon Garland. I'd save it for Mark B.

I trust Kenny and if he thinks Vasquez will return to form with us, then I make the trade. We'll have him for three years locked up at a decent rate.

Just me opinion...

KRS1

12-13-2005, 08:17 PM

You can't offer Garland the same deal Paulie got because he's going to demand a much higher price tag.

If Kenny Rogers got $8mil. a year and A.J Burnett got $12 Mil a year, "IF" Garland goes out a has a similar year as last year at his age your looking at paying Jon Garland around 14-15mil a year.

I can't ever imagine paying that much for Jon Garland. I'd save it for Mark B.

I trust Kenny and if he thinks Vasquez will return to form with us, then I make the trade. We'll have him for three years locked up at a decent rate.

Just me opinion...

If we offered Jon the same deal AJ got he'd sign that in a second.

beckett21

12-13-2005, 08:20 PM

You can't offer Garland the same deal Paulie got because he's going to demand a much higher price tag.

If Kenny Rogers got $8mil. a year and A.J Burnett got $12 Mil a year, "IF" Garland goes out a has a similar year as last year at his age your looking at paying Jon Garland around 14-15mil a year.

I can't ever imagine paying that much for Jon Garland. I'd save it for Mark B.

I trust Kenny and if he thinks Vasquez will return to form with us, then I make the trade. We'll have him for three years locked up at a decent rate.

Just me opinion...

Exactly.

If it comes down to only being able to pay one of the two between Garland and Buehrle, that one is a no-brainer. Buehrle is the guy you spend your money on.

It's a numbers game. Someone's going to have to go with so many guys ready to cash in on the heels of a World Series win. KW is no fool.

whitesoxfan1986

12-13-2005, 08:34 PM

Petition to KW: DO NOT TRADE CHRIS YOUNG!!!!!! He should be as untouchable as McCarthy. This guy is really good and should be our CF in 2007. I would see if the Diamondbacks want Jerry Owens instead. Try Haeger if necessary but....DO NOT TRADE CHRIS YOUNG!!!!!!!! how many times do I have to include !!!!!!!!!?

Malgar 12

12-13-2005, 08:46 PM

I'm not saying give up Garland...If we swapped El Duque for Vazquez, I'd be ok with that. But if KW thinks it's unlikely Garland will re-sign next year, then I say get something rather than have him walk away with no one to show for it.

But you've got a whole year to show for it. If he wins 15-20 games and they make a playoff run again, its all worth it.

gr8mexico

12-13-2005, 08:47 PM

WOW everyone in here is going crazy. I think everyone should just wait and see what happends. I think everyone in here trust Kenny when he makes a trade and what ever he does I will like he always finds away to make it work for us.

Qdiddy

12-13-2005, 08:49 PM

Jerry Owens??? Isn't he killing in winter ball right now? I don't have access to Chris Young's stats but from what I've been reading it sounds like Owens may turn out to be a better pro than Young. Ozzie can't stop talking about Owens.

Who like Owens better than Young?

Now, don't get me wrong I'm not saying that Chris Young isn't good, but I don't know if I'd call him untouchable.

JB98

12-13-2005, 08:52 PM

I wouldnt go that far, Troy is a superior hitter in every category accept maybe clutch hits in a career, but defensively Joe>>>>>>>>>>>Troy. There was a time when I considered Glaus the # 3rd baseman in the majors bhing only Chavez and Rolen, now after the back and arm troubles he's just in the middle of the pack of players I would consider.

I don't care what Glaus has done in his career. He is on the downside. There was a time you considered Glaus the third best third baseman in the game. I doubt that time is now.

spawn

12-13-2005, 08:53 PM

But you've got a whole year to show for it. If he wins 15-20 games and they make a playoff run again, its all worth it.
And if he doesn't and we don't? Jon Garland is not an absolute certainty to repeat his performance of 2004. He had a great year, a coming out so to speak. I'll bet money if doesn't repeat his success, people here will be wishing we got rid of him for something. I'd love nothing more than KW to sign him to a three or four year contract...but he shouldn't break the bank for him either. \\, which he'll more than likely have to do to keep him.

KRS1

12-13-2005, 08:54 PM

Jerry Owens??? Isn't he killing in winter ball right now? I don't have access to Chris Young's stats but from what I've been reading it sounds like Owens may turn out to be a better pro than Young. Ozzie can't stop talking about Owens.

Who like Owens better than Young?

Now, don't get me wrong I'm not saying that Chris Young isn't good, but I don't know if I'd call him untouchable.

Can you show me where he said his name more than once, please show me. Owens is one of my favorite players in the system including the majors, but currently Young projects,emphasis on projects, to be a 30-30 type player where as Owens doesnt have any power but would be a 50+ steals guy. Now thats basically saying if they both reach their potential one is KG jr. in his prime and one is Juan Pierre, tell me whom would you say is more untouchable.

DickAllen72

12-13-2005, 08:55 PM

Exactly.

If it comes down to only being able to pay one of the two between Garland and Buehrle, that one is a no-brainer. Buehrle is the guy you spend your money on.

It's a numbers game. Someone's going to have to go with so many guys ready to cash in on the heels of a World Series win. KW is no fool.

KW should try to lock up Buerhle, Garland and Contreras if at all possible. If someone has to go let it be a position player. Pitching is what got us here.

Having said that, KW has proven to be one of the best GM's in the business and I'm sure he'll do what he has to do. I just wish his hands weren't tied when it comes to money for pitching.

If Konerko is worth $12M, so is Garland and Buehrle is worth even more. I'd rather see the Sox pay Garland $12M than Vazques $11.5M. And I'd hate to part with Young just to pay a few million of Vazquez' salary.

Once again let me repeat, I've been one of KW's biggest supporters and whatever he winds up doing will probably be for the best.

KRS1

12-13-2005, 08:57 PM

I don't care what Glaus has done in his career. He is on the downside. There was a time you considered Glaus the third best third baseman in the game. I doubt that time is now.

He was out for an entire season, give him some time to come back before you write him off. Only 2 seasons ago he was an up-and-comer in this league, I very much doubt he will undergo that much of a downslide. Also, for what its worth Crede for whatever he will make next year>>>>>>>>>>Glaus at 12m.

Brian26

12-13-2005, 09:02 PM

The first time I saw this rumor, I hated the idea and thought it was crazy. The more I think about it, the more sense it makes to me. Garland doesn't want to come back. He wants to pitch for the Dodgers or the Angels. We're going to lose him after '06. Ozzie's been in love with Vazquez for awhile now. I still remember him gushing over Vazquez after we played the Yankees in 2004. I believe he said Vazquez had the best stuff in the league at the time. I'd rather keep Garland, but I can see this trade happening.

KRS1

12-13-2005, 09:03 PM

The first time I saw this rumor, I hated the idea and thought it was crazy. The more I think about it, the more sense it makes to me. Garland doesn't want to come back. He wants to pitch for the Dodgers or the Angels. We're going to lose him after '06. Ozzie's been in love with Vazquez for awhile now. I still remember him gushing over Vazquez after we played the Yankees in 2004. I believe he said Vazquez had the best stuff in the league at the time. I'd rather keep Garland, but I can see this trade happening.

i realize he's from SoCal, but could you site your source on this info?

beckett21

12-13-2005, 09:10 PM

KW should try to lock up Buerhle, Garland and Contreras if at all possible. If someone has to go let it be a position player. Pitching is what got us here.

Having said that, KW has proven to be one of the best GM's in the business and I'm sure he'll do what he has to do. I just wish his hands weren't tied when it comes to money for pitching.

If Konerko is worth $12M, so is Garland and Buehrle is worth even more. I'd rather see the Sox pay Garland $12M than Vazques $11.5M. And I'd hate to part with Young just to pay a few million of Vazquez' salary.

Once again let me repeat, I've been one of KW's biggest supporters and whatever he winds up doing will probably be for the best.

I certainly wouldn't be in favor of giving up Young, Owens, or anyone of their ilk in this deal. Garland alone is plenty.

It would be great if KW could keep the current staff intact for the long term. Realistically though, this is probably not possible. I don't see how they will be able to reward both Buehrle and Garland with long-term deals the way the market is skewed.

If Garland is giving signals that he is planning to head west next year anyway, why not get something for him now? I see a Vazquez pickup as being similar to what the Sox did with Freddy. He will be a bargain over the next 3 years, relatively speaking, given the direction the market is going.

Qdiddy

12-13-2005, 09:13 PM

Maybe it's just me but it's not even fair to compare KG Jr. and Chris Young. Young is not nearly the prospect KG was, atmost he'll project out to being a little bit better version of Aaron Rowand. Which is not a bad thing.

As for Owens, finding a outfielder who hits 30hrs is a lot easier than finding a 50SB guy who's an excellant leadoff or number 2 hitter. I guess it all comes down to what your needs are. But, again....a stud leadoff hitter is the hardest thing to find in baseball. Besides a switch-hitting catcher who can hit for average,power, and steal 25 bags of course. :smile:

Mr. White Sox

12-13-2005, 09:14 PM

I hate when Kenny is enamored with a player this much. Vasquez is a sub .500 career pitcher, who had an almost 4.50 era in the crappy national league last year. I think he sucks. This deal makes no sense because he makes a ton of money. Keep Jon. Keep Jose and try to repeat. Then take your chances signing which ever you want to keep. To me, this would make repeating much tougher.

Just wondering...wasn't Jon Garland close to or under .500 for his career entering this year? Also, didn't a bunch of people on the WSI board hate the guy? Let's wait this out and just roll with what happens.

whitesox22392239

12-13-2005, 09:15 PM

on 670 the score mike north reports if the trade were to go down garland and contreras wouldnt be in the deal most likely duque and a prospect i hope not young or owens i dont mind sweeney

Brian26

12-13-2005, 09:17 PM

i realize he's from SoCal, but could you site your source on this info?

My gut.

KRS1

12-13-2005, 09:21 PM

Maybe it's just me but it's not even fair to compare KG Jr. and Chris Young. Young is not nearly the prospect KG was, atmost he'll project out to being a little bit better version of Aaron Rowand. Which is not a bad thing.

As for Owens, finding a outfielder who hits 30hrs is a lot easier than finding a 50SB guy who's an excellant leadoff or number 2 hitter. I guess it all comes down to what your needs are. But, again....a stud leadoff hitter is the hardest thing to find in baseball. Besides a switch-hitting catcher who can hit for average,power, and steal 25 bags of course. :smile:

You are absolutely right, and I never compared the two, rather suggested what the max career potential of each was compared to a major leaguer. Going back I would probably have said Soriano for Young but it's too late for that.

Also, Young is much faster than Rowand ever was, hit more hr's last year in his first year in AA than Aaron ever has in his entire career, and will steall more than 19 a year, I promise you that.

duke of dorwood

12-13-2005, 09:37 PM

KW was really put off by Garland not taking the offer-they'll dump him foa another starter in a heartbeat

billyvsox

12-13-2005, 09:37 PM

Various reports of Javier Vazquez coming to the Sox via a trade that would send Jon Garland or Jose Contreras (plus prospects -- McCarthy?) to the Diamondbacks.

This would not be good - primarily because Vazquez STINKS - please say it ain't so.

gr8mexico

12-13-2005, 09:39 PM

STOP IT ALREADY!!!!! You are to late

samram

12-13-2005, 09:41 PM

I love that everyone thinks they're the first person of all 6000 or so members to have heard this.

nodiggity59

12-13-2005, 09:42 PM

I love that everyone thinks they're the first person of all 6000 or so members to have heard this.

Reading helps, but who has the time to look at what other people have put on here before we decide to post.

Realist

12-13-2005, 09:46 PM

Alright. Alright. Spread out, folks. We gotta make room for yet another thread started in the Clubhouse about this same rumor.

cheeses_h_rice

12-13-2005, 09:49 PM

It just sucks that there's no way of performing a search on WSI before one can post a thread, doesn't it?

:rolleyes:

samram

12-13-2005, 09:50 PM

It just sucks that there's no way of performing a search on WSI before one can post a thread, isn't it?

:rolleyes:

I also think it's crappy that you have to make a post before being able to read any other posts.

Soxzilla

12-13-2005, 09:50 PM

THIS JUST IN! THE SOX TRADE MIGUEL OLIVO AND PROSPECTS TO SEATTLE FOR FREDDY GARCIA AND BEN DAVIS! *i'd use teal, but my control panel and smilies are frozen...

A. Cavatica

12-13-2005, 09:56 PM

...so let's suppose the deal is Duque + Young for Vazquez. This is essentially Young for Vazquez, with Hernandez thrown in so the Diamondbacks will eat more salary.

Getting a very good starter for a blue chip prospect is usually considered a good trade.

Anyway, I like Vazquez, but I'm not sure we need him. He would push McCarthy (presumably) to long relief. I suppose it's injury insurance, plus if we fell out of the race, we could trade Garland or another starter at the deadline. On the other hand, we're more likely to be IN the race and trading prospects for veterans. Why not hold onto Young until we know what we need?

Hagan

12-13-2005, 10:04 PM

This is such a bad bad deal if we do this! Vazquez is going to sink with the white sox. He gives up to many home runs, he went 11-15 with a .764 ops against. His Ground ball to fly ball ratio is not that good and does not translate well into US cellular field. this is such a bad move if we do it because right now i see vazquez as a #6 starter on our team. We do not need him. I would rather take the money garland is making this year and sign a pitcher in the off season if he doesnt sign with us instead of having vazquez for garland or jose. I would like a trade like this if we lacked starting pitching but that is not the case.

nodiggity59

12-13-2005, 10:05 PM

...so let's suppose the deal is Duque + Young for Vazquez. This is essentially Young for Vazquez, with Hernandez thrown in so the Diamondbacks will eat more salary.

Getting a very good starter for a blue chip prospect is usually considered a good trade.

Anyway, I like Vazquez, but I'm not sure we need him. He would push McCarthy (presumably) to long relief. I suppose it's injury insurance, plus if we fell out of the race, we could trade Garland or another starter at the deadline. On the other hand, we're more likely to be IN the race and trading prospects for veterans. Why not hold onto Young until we know what we need?

Garland, if successful this season, would bring much more at the deadline. He could easily replace Young and bring us a nice big league part. It'd be a net win, unless Jon tanks it this year.

A. Cavatica

12-13-2005, 10:12 PM

Garland, if successful this season, would bring much more at the deadline. He could easily replace Young and bring us a nice big league part. It'd be a net win, unless Jon tanks it this year.

Most deadline deals involve (A) a playoff contender willing to spend to fill a hole, and (B) an also-ran looking to dump salary and acquire prospects. Trades between two playoff contenders are relatively rare. I'm sure we could trade Garland at the deadline, but all those (B) teams would rather have Chris Young.

Mr. White Sox

12-13-2005, 10:12 PM

It just sucks that there's no way of performing a search on WSI before one can post a thread, doesn't it?

:rolleyes:

I also think it's crappy that you have to make a post before being able to read any other posts.

:tealpolice:
OH MY GOD IT'S A HUGE ONE. HANDS BEHIND YOUR HEAD SIRS!

Hagan

12-13-2005, 10:16 PM

...so let's suppose the deal is Duque + Young for Vazquez. This is essentially Young for Vazquez, with Hernandez thrown in so the Diamondbacks will eat more salary.

Getting a very good starter for a blue chip prospect is usually considered a good trade.

Anyway, I like Vazquez, but I'm not sure we need him. He would push McCarthy (presumably) to long relief. I suppose it's injury insurance, plus if we fell out of the race, we could trade Garland or another starter at the deadline. On the other hand, we're more likely to be IN the race and trading prospects for veterans. Why not hold onto Young until we know what we need?

the problem with what you are saying is that vazquez is not a very good starter. his last two years were so bad. Since moving out of the very big olympic stadium he has let so many home runs up. His pitching has not declined much over the years he is just out of a comfortbale stadium. In 2002 his away stats were so bad. 2003 he had a good year all around but 2004 and 2005 his away stats once again were bad. If he is moved to US cellular he is going to do awful. Young is worth a lot more than Vazquez and so is Garland.

A. Cavatica

12-13-2005, 10:26 PM

Count me among those who believe Vazquez is a better pitcher than Garland. With Coop as his pitching coach, Ozzie as his manager, and the Sox defense behind him, I think Vazquez would have his best season.

I'd rather see Garland for Vazquez + cash than I would see us trade Young.

EndemicSox

12-13-2005, 10:29 PM

KW better have some inside info about regarding Vasquez and his problems over the past few years. Trading Garland for JV would not be a good move if we are getting the JV of 2004-05. I'm sure Kenny can find a better pitcher...

gr8mexico

12-13-2005, 10:29 PM

I really think Kenny has been talking to Coop and they probally found out already what Javier is doing wrong and coop might have a solution for his problems.I Kenny I trust!!

SoxSpeed22

12-13-2005, 10:31 PM

In a word, no!

Qdiddy

12-13-2005, 10:32 PM

Everyone has valid points from whatever side you're on, but ask yourself this.
If the deal is going to be for El duque & Young meaning that we didn't give up Jose C. or Garland which makes Vasquez our 5th starter. Even if he only wins 11-13 games, there will almost no pressure on him in our rotation, plus he has the stuff to be a potential 20 game winner. Hopefully, Coop can work his magic.

So, again what team wouldn't what to have frickin' Javier Vasquez as their 5th starter. And if Arizona picks up any of his salary it's just icing on the cake.

Am I way off on this??? Does anyone see where I'm coming from?

We took a chance on a lot of players last year and it paid off so why not press our luck again. We may not be in this position for a long time.

CWSpalehoseCWS

12-13-2005, 10:36 PM

There is a new article on whitesox.com that says the Sox are very interested in acquiring Vazquez. I don't know if this would be a good thing or bad thing. He has a huge contract and we may have to give up more than we want. If we could keep our starting rotation think of what it could look like:

I'd trade Garland for Vasquez straight up in a heartbeat. Garland is as good as gone after next season and his pricetag will be astronomical, especially if he has another 16+ win season. He'll have a winning career record at age 27 and will probably get 5 years AT LEAST $55 million. Vasquez is locked up through 2007 and assuming Arizona sends some cash to even the salaries, we're getting a very solid starting pitcher for about (maybe less than) the $8-10 million that seems to be "market value" these days. Also, I don't think you can base your Vasquez opinions on pitching for the Expos and D-Backs and a Yankees stint that he clearly wasn't ready for. He stays healthy and has great stuff. My ONLY caution with this would be that he requests a trade midseason and upsets our clubhouse which he has done the last two seasons.

Buehrle
Contreras
Garcia
Vasquez
McCarthy

Wow, to me that looks as good as our rotation was last year, if not better depending on if Vasquez can pitch better than Garland's career averages (something like 13-10 4.00 ERA) and McCarthy pitches as much of the season as he can without burning out (better than El Duque for only 20-some starts).

FarWestChicago

12-13-2005, 10:42 PM

Wow, two more with breaking news. :redneck

KRS1

12-13-2005, 10:42 PM

I would rather trade Jon for another sinkerball type pitcher even if he is considered a lesser pitcher than JV, perhaps Shawn Chacon. I wanted him last year at the deadline as bad as some wanted AJB, he has had one terrible year marred w/ injury and other than that put up very good numbers in Coors. In the AL and Yankee stadium none the less he put up some gaudy stats and in all accept for 1 start against the M's he basically shut down the competition.

FloridaSox

12-13-2005, 10:45 PM

I really think Kenny has been talking to Coop and they probally found out already what Javier is doing wrong and coop might have a solution for his problems.I Kenny I trust!!

Not much of anything...look at his K/W ratio last year...better than any member of the current rotation. So what happened. Arizona was 24th in Defensive Efficiency and the White Sox were 2nd (just a tad behind Oakland). With the White Sox gloves and speed in the outfield, Vaszquez will do just fine in White Sox rotation.

Sportline seems to think Javier for El Duque, Young and a relief pitcher is going to happen.

KRS1

12-13-2005, 10:47 PM

Not much of anything...look at his K/W ratio last year...better than any member of the current rotation. So what happened. Arizona was 24th in Defensive Efficiency and the White Sox were 2nd (just a tad behind Oakland). With the White Sox gloves and speed in the outfield, Vaszquez will do just fine in White Sox rotation.

Sportline seems to think Javier for El Duque, Young and a relief pitcher is going to happen.

Yeah he'll do better w/ our D, accept for when balls are flying over the fences of course.

Brian26

12-13-2005, 10:49 PM

I see a Vazquez pickup as being similar to what the Sox did with Freddy. He will be a bargain over the next 3 years, relatively speaking, given the direction the market is going.

I see that too, but it also reminds me a bit of the Keith Foulke for Billy Koch trade. KW knew Foulke was going to be a free agent and would want big $, so he traded for Foulke for Koch. The difference there is that KW signed Koch after the trade to a new contract, while in this case Vazquez' contract is already in place.

Hagan

12-13-2005, 10:49 PM

So, again what team wouldn't what to have frickin' Javier Vasquez as their 5th starter. And if Arizona picks up any of his salary it's just icing on the cake.

I dont think its icing on the cake if they eat money on him i think they would need to eat a ton of money on him for a deal like this to happen. I do not see why we would trade garland for vazquez? He is demanding to be traded, he costs a lot of money, he had two down years, and his trade value is at an all time low. Trading Young or Garland for him is giving up way way way way to much. The sox could easily get a much more consistand pitcher for garland. Thsi trade does not make sense for the white sox or the Diamond backs. Why do the Dbacks want garland on a one year deal when they are going to have a hard time competing in a bad division?

Also if we can get vazquez for real cheap like a prospect or lesser value we dont need him. We need to get mccarthy in this rotation. He is ready to pitch as a starter.

nodiggity59

12-13-2005, 10:50 PM

I see that too, but it also reminds me a bit of the Keith Foulke for Billy Koch trade. KW knew Foulke was going to be a free agent and would want big $, so he traded for Foulke for Koch. The difference there is that KW signed Koch after the trade to a new contract, while in this case Vazquez' contract is already in place.

Maybe. In retrospect, trading Foulke was a great idea. He clearly priced himself out of our payroll at the time. Now, getting Koch was an awful move, but moving guys in their contract year (whom you know you can't sign) isn't a bad move.

Brian26

12-13-2005, 10:51 PM

Sportline seems to think Javier for El Duque, Young and a relief pitcher is going to happen.

With Owens, Anderson and Sweeney in line for the outfield, along with Duque's questionable health, this would be a hell of a trade for KW on paper.

A. Cavatica

12-13-2005, 10:52 PM

Hey, I read here (http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=63669) that KW is trying to trade for Vazquez

MHOUSE

12-13-2005, 10:56 PM

I would rather trade Jon for another sinkerball type pitcher even if he is considered a lesser pitcher than JV, perhaps Shawn Chacon. I wanted him last year at the deadline as bad as some wanted AJB, he has had one terrible year marred w/ injury and other than that put up very good numbers in Coors. In the AL and Yankee stadium none the less he put up some gaudy stats and in all accept for 1 start against the M's he basically shut down the competition.

I always thought Chacon was a stud the few times I saw him pitch for the Rockies. I doubt the Yankees part with him though. He's their only pitcher with experience, moderate salary, and age under 30. (Wang and Small were both rookies more or less)

beckett21

12-13-2005, 10:59 PM

I see that too, but it also reminds me a bit of the Keith Foulke for Billy Koch trade. KW knew Foulke was going to be a free agent and would want big $, so he traded for Foulke for Koch. The difference there is that KW signed Koch after the trade to a new contract, while in this case Vazquez' contract is already in place.

You had to bring the Foulke for Koch deal up, didn't you? :tongue:

It could go either way, no one really knows for sure I guess. If the talk now is El Duque and Young, that changes things.

I'll be honest I don't know enough about Young to have a strong opinion on him one way or another; all I know about him is what I see on this board. But if it means that we keep Garland and Contreras for another year and add Vazquez, that part I definitely like.

That would give McCarthy another year to acclimate to the majors, and he could then step into Jon's slot if/when he walks after next season. Not too shabby.

gr8mexico

12-13-2005, 11:05 PM

Maybe. In retrospect, trading Foulke was a great idea. He clearly priced himself out of our payroll at the time. Now, getting Koch was an awful move, but moving guys in their contract year (whom you know you can't sign) isn't a bad move. But dont forget we also got the great Neal Cotts!!!! YES!!!!!:bandance: I just thought of something dont you thing that the Sox are hyping up Owens to much and he might be the player involved in the trade because his value is high right now. The Sox got this guy for almost nothing fromt he Nationals right

KRS1

12-13-2005, 11:15 PM

Would duque,chuck haeger, and collaro/spidale get this deal done?

ElDuque26

12-13-2005, 11:20 PM

According to CBS.SPORTSLINE.COM, the white sox are closing in on a deal for vazquez, but would have to give up Chris Young, El Duque and a releiver...why make the deal...no faith in BMac?

Joosh

12-13-2005, 11:21 PM

Oh my god...

Please, tell me I didn't just see that!

Joosh

12-13-2005, 11:23 PM

Better make room for another thread, guys.

I'm actually liking this deal. If Kenny and Coop weren't sure they could fix whatever problems Vazquez has, why would they pick him up?

spongyfungy

12-13-2005, 11:23 PM

If KW pulls this off, he's GM of the year for '06. World Series or not. He's doing everything in his power to continue to improve this club.

I have bad memories of Vazquez just dominating us at the cell.

Fenway

12-13-2005, 11:25 PM

The World Series champion Chicago White Sox (http://www.sportsline.com/mlb/teams/page/CHW) are on the verge of acquiring starting pitcher Javier Vazquez (http://www.sportsline.com/mlb/players/playerpage/8148) from Arizona (http://www.sportsline.com/mlb/teams/page/ARI) for pitcher Orlando "El Duque" Hernandez (http://www.sportsline.com/mlb/players/playerpage/11151), a minor-league outfielder expected to be Chris Young and another pitcher, believed to be a reliever, according to CBS SportsLine.com sources.

http://www.sportsline.com/mlb/story/9094678

KRS1

12-13-2005, 11:27 PM

I might be the only one but I think this trade weakens our team, by subtracting 2 members of our BP El+?, and our best OF prospect. Yes, I know I'm gonna hear a prospect is just that a prospect BS but talk about overpaying. Young for JV is too much and the Dbacks GM is gonna be laughing at KW if he gets this one done.

It could go either way, no one really knows for sure I guess. If the talk now is El Duque and Young, that changes things.

I'll be honest I don't know enough about Young to have a strong opinion on him one way or another; all I know about him is what I see on this board. But if it means that we keep Garland and Contreras for another year and add Vazquez, that part I definitely like.

That would give McCarthy another year to acclimate to the majors, and he could then step into Jon's slot if/when he walks after next season. Not too shabby.

I said this during the Griffey trade rumor discussion: The only player who has more long-term value to the Sox than Chris Young is McCarthy. He's about the best-looking athlete I have ever seen in a Sox uni. Does that guarantee success? No. But if we trade him and he reaches anything like his potential, we will rue the day. Personally, I don't think Anderson has anywhere near Young's potential, and that's not a shot at BA. Young is just that good. Just one's man opinion. To keep Garland for one extra year at the expense of six years (three very inexpensive) from Young, it just doesn't seem wise.

Plus, McCarthy's ready. Why do you want Vazquez blocking him?

nodiggity59

12-13-2005, 11:30 PM

I might be the only one but I think this trade weakens our team, by subtracting 2 members of our BP El+?, and our best OF prospect. Yes, I know I'm gonna hear a prospect is just that a prospect BS but talk about overpaying. Young for JV is too much and the Dbacks GM is gonna be laughing at KW if he gets this one done.

If this is a traditional KW move, expect us to receive cash in exchange. Also, Duque, while useful in the playoffs, is an extreme liability at his salary.

However, like everyone else I am hoping that the OF is not Young. Otherwise, this deal makes a lot of sense given the outrageous pitching market right now.

KRS1

12-13-2005, 11:34 PM

I said this during the Griffey trade rumor discussion: The only player who has more long-term value to the Sox than Chris Young is McCarthy. He's about the best-looking athlete I have ever seen in a Sox uni. Does that guarantee success? No. But if we trade him and he reaches anything like his potential, we will rue the day. Personally, I don't think Anderson has anywhere near Young's potential, and that's not a shot at BA. Young is just that good. Just one's man opinion. To keep Garland for one extra year at the expense of six years (three very inexpensive) from Young, it just doesn't seem wise.

Plus, McCarthy's ready. Why do you want Vazquez blocking him?

If we could deal BA w/ El then Ill be jumping for joy, b/c I'm with you on the fact that Young has much more potential than hurricane.

beckett21

12-13-2005, 11:34 PM

I said this during the Griffey trade rumor discussion: The only player who has more long-term value to the Sox than Chris Young is McCarthy. He's about the best-looking athlete I have ever seen in a Sox uni. Does that guarantee success? No. But if we trade him and he reaches anything like his potential, we will rue the day. Personally, I don't think Anderson has anywhere near Young's potential, and that's not a shot at BA. Young is just that good. Just one's man opinion. To keep Garland for one extra year at the expense of six years (three very inexpensive) from Young, it just doesn't seem wise.

Plus, McCarthy's ready. Why do you want Vazquez blocking him?

I'll defer to you on the Young argument. I couldn't pick him out of a lineup.

As far as McCarthy being *ready*, he may be. But he would probably be better off with another season under his belt in a Buehrle-type developmental role. With Garland and Contreras both in contract years, a spot will be open in 2007. No hurry. He'll be around awhile.

It can't ever hurt to have an extra quality arm around. I don't look it as blocking McCarthy; I look at it as both short-and long-term insurance for the pitching staff as a whole.

mlb.com says the deal will be announced tomorrow. What a horrible trade. Vazquez is going to flop

Corlose 15

12-13-2005, 11:56 PM

Mods I just wanna say I feel sorry for you guys when rumors like this pop up.:D:

KRS1

12-13-2005, 11:56 PM

No way is this official.

Optipessimism

12-13-2005, 11:57 PM

If it's Young and Duque and a lower reliever like Viz/Baj/Munoz or something I think its a decent trade, but we don't need to make that trade.

We already have SIX SP's, so why do we need to upgrade our 6th starter? Brandon's work at the end of the year shows that it is his time to step into the thick of things. Even if he were to struglle more often that not, we still have a better offense than the 2005 team and should be able to stay in the game for the most part.

One poster mentioned about spinning Vazquez off for Tejada, which would make up for losing Chris Young but then who do we have as a backup if BA falters? We already traded Rowand and even Willie doesn't look like he'll get a contract.

This team is already set. If it's Javier for Garland and we're getting some cash back then that makes sense, but the Sox are in a position where they don't have to make anymore big trades and if they want to can sit back and relax with the depth they have both at SP and OF. No sense screwing it all up for Javier Vaquez.

Realist

12-13-2005, 11:58 PM

Well... at least it's in the right forum.

nodiggity59

12-13-2005, 11:58 PM

If it's Young and Duque and a lower reliever like Viz/Baj/Munoz or something I think its a decent trade, but we don't need to make that trade.

We already have SIX SP's, so why do we need to upgrade our 6th starter? Brandon's work at the end of the year shows that it is his time to step into the thick of things. Even if he were to struglle more often that not, we still have a better offense than the 2005 team and should be able to stay in the game for the most part.

One poster mentioned about spinning Vazquez off for Tejada, which would make up for losing Chris Young but then who do we have as a backup if BA falters? We already traded Rowand and even Willie doesn't look like he'll get a contract.

This team is already set. If it's Javier for Garland and we're getting some cash back then that makes sense, but the Sox are in a position where they don't have to make anymore big trades and if they want to can sit back and relax with the depth they have both at SP and OF. No sense screwing it all up for Javier Vaquez.

Damn by what MLB.com is saying and how they are saying it this deal is pretty official(it says Javi returns to the ALafter one season in AZ). I just have to hope AZ is paying a crapload of Javis contract, and that Young doesnt blow up into a superstud. F'n f, now my 2 favorite minor leaguers are with new teams, f'n f'ity f f f.

Flight #24

12-14-2005, 12:04 AM

You heard it here first: Vazquez+cash for Duque+Young. Vazquez comes in at about $8M/yr before Duque's savings.

Followed by Garland+Uribe+Sweeney to Baltimore for Tejada. '06 OF=Pods-Anderson-Dye. '07 OF=Pods-Owens-Anderson (doable because you have a great bat at SS).

Garland (arb award)+Uribe=Tejada's salary. Vazquez comes in at about $4-5M for '06 then $8 in '07, when you get Dye off the books.